Shared print repositories : working together on library collections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Karen S. Fischer and Faye A. Chadwell 1. Collective Collection, Collective Action Robert H. Kieft and Lizanne Payne 2. From Collaborative Purchasing Towards Collaborative Discarding: The Evolution of the Shared Print Repository Susanne K. Clement 3. Rethinking Collection Management Plans: Shaping Collective Collections for the 21st Century Samuel Demas and Mary E. Miller 4. Small Scale: Using a Regional Pilot Project to Explore the Potential of Shared Print David J. Gregory and Karen Lawson 5. Three Libraries, Three Weeding Projects: Collaborative Weeding Projects Within a Shared Print Repository Scott Gillies and Carol Stephenson 6. Like a Snowball Gathering Speed: Development of ASERL's Print Journal Retention Program Diane Bruxvoort, John E. Burger, and Lynn Sorensen Sutton 7. CIC Co-Investment to Protect Print Research Library Collections in the Midwestern United States Mark Sandler, Kim Armstrong, Julianne Bobay, Mecheal Charbonneau, Brenda L. Johnson, and Carolyn Walters 8. All Together Now: Planning for Shared Print Archiving at Canada's Western Universities Gwen Bird and Gohar Ashoughian 9. The Story of a Shared Last Copy Repository in Australia: The CARM Centre Stage 2 Development Janette Wright, Cathie Jilovsky, and Craig Anderson 10. Collaborative Stewardship: Building a Shared, Central Collection of Print Legal Materials Margaret K. Maes and Tracy L. Thompson-Przylucki 11. Using Targeted Distributed Collections to Enhance Government Depository Collections at a Regional Level: The ASERL Collaborative Federal Depository Program Chelsea Dinsmore and Valerie D. Glenn 12. The OHDEP Project: Creating a Shared Catalog for the Northeast Ohio Depository Kay Downey
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.042 | 0.047 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.189 | 0.067 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".