Bibliographic record
Abstract
ContextIt has been well documented that the emergence of a stable body of electronic text is transforming the utility of legacy print collections in academic libraries (Schonfeld, 2009 ;Kieft, 2012 ; ARL, 2012).This is certainly true for journals and increasingly appears to be affecting the management of monograph collections as well (Lavoie and Schonfeld, 2006; Demas, 2012).Combined with pressure for the repurposing of space in university libraries, and the acceptance of online reading by researchers, this shift is pushing collection managers toward consideration of historical print collections on an entirely new scale (Lavoie et al., 2012;Malpas, 2011).As the authors of the ARL statement on 21 st Century collections put it, "Twenty-first-century collection management will therefore require increased collaboration within and among institutions...A multi-institutional approach is the only one that now makes sense" (Association of Research Libraries, 2012, p. 1).The Council of Prairie and Pacific University Libraries (COPPUL) is a consortium of 23 university libraries in the four western provinces of Canada.Spanning 1.1 million square miles yet with only 10 million residents, the region's vast geography has been a driver for cooperation.In 2011, after several years of planning and study, 19 member libraries responded by forming the Shared Print Archive Network (SPAN) in our region.The origins of this program have been documented elsewhere (Bird and Ashoughian, 2012;Wong, 2012).This paper focuses on how SPAN fits into larger national and global frameworks of related activity.Looking at current developments in Canada and the US, as well as the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong, we explore the possibility of increased international exchange among such programs in various jurisdictions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".