MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2012566679 · doi:10.1353/scp.2012.0005

Moving: The Transom

2012· article· en· W2012566679 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
William W. Savage

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLibrary Science and Administration
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNothingSalaryDeskLawSociologyPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

MovingThe Transom William W. Savage Jr. (bio) The nine-storey building housing my academic department and several others was, as of January 2011, and depending upon whom you believed, either on the verge of collapse or merely in need of structural tweaking. In any case, we faculty were told to clean out our offices and leave the building by the second week in May. My office contained thirteen seven-foot bookcases filled to overflowing, five file cabinets bulging at the seams, and a desk so laden with paper that its surface had not been visible for years. So, during the next four months, I sorted, packed, hauled, and stored approximately two tons of printed matter, four or five cartons at a time, despite warnings issued by Mother Nature and Father Time that I should hire it done before I hurt myself. Well, not on my salary, quoth I, hyperextending this and straining that but, mercifully, tearing or breaking nothing. Some of my colleagues found my labours quite amusing, because, I gather, they are minimalists in the matter of book ownership. Inasmuch as the books in my office were overflow from home, I suppose I must qualify as a maximalist, tending to behave in bookstores like a boozer in a brewery. I shall not, however, take twelve steps or make amends for any of it. The experience of moving the contents of my office did bring a certain enlightenment: I was considerably less than halfway through my labors when it occurred to me that e-books possessed a virtue that I had not appreciated fully theretofore, namely, that they weigh only as much as the gizmo upon which they are read. No wonder librarians admire e-books so much. Clear out those shelves and the unhandy arte-facts that have so long sat upon them, load up on e-books, install a plenitude of servers, and pretty soon every library in the world will be the biggest library in the world. No need to re-shelve anything. No need to catalogue. No need to know the alphabet or LC numbers or what to do [End Page 243] with Melvil Dewey’s decimals. No more dust allergies. No risk of hernia. Library science lives up to its name, and never mind that the adoption of e-books will add thousands of librarians to the unemployment rolls. Progress necessitates obsolescence, I reckon. Then, still packing cartons, I began to wonder about the particulars of e-research in e-books. What if I needed to compare, say, five e-sources? Would I have to examine the materials in sequence? Would I need access to five e-readers? Is there a device allowing five e-pages from five e-sources to appear legibly on the same screen at the same time? So many questions. And so few answers, even from young colleagues who, chronology suggested, should know about such things. Indeed, one of them remarked to me (while I was yet hip-deep in books, bubble wrap, and build-’em-yourself cardboard boxes) that it might help to think of those who embrace e-books as members of something resembling a cargo cult. “Holy cow!” I thought. “John Frum Kindle? A continually anticipated airlift of digital goodies to an expectant and ever-hopeful population?” What, in point of fact, had I heard about e-books? A great many discouraging things, that’s what. An anthropologist told me that e-books don’t have page numbers or indices, and that if you wanted to look for something you’d read yesterday, the odds were that you wouldn’t be able to find it today. A colleague told me that a book he’d written as a collateral text had been issued as both a paperback and an e-book. The virtue of the e-manifestation apparently lay in the fact that students could download it to all sorts of gizmos, and once they’d read it, they had only to push a button and, poof, it was gone. (I could see a new student excuse looming on the horizon. I’d already heard–several times—the one about a malfunctioning computer and/or printer, invoked...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCommunication savante
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,990
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,735

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,003
Communication savante0,0100,008
Science ouverte0,0010,009
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,2200,105

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,061
Tête enseignante GPT0,308
Écart entre enseignants0,247 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Scholarly PublishingMême sujetLibrary Science and AdministrationTravaux en français237 207