Not Your Mother’s PDA: The Transition from PDA Pilot to Full Acquisitions Integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Western Libraries and Ingram Content Group worked together to establish a Patron Driven Acquisition (PDA) program that has been incorporated into the regular acquisitions workflow at Western. Some features of the program include: all titles selected for addition to the PDA collection are filtered through the approval profiles established by the librarians, the library’s holdings are uploaded to Ingram weekly so that duplicate titles are avoided, invoices for purchased PDA titles are sent weekly, and holdings for un-purchased and purchased PDA records are updated weekly. A PDA Working Group established the program at Western by meeting with collections librarians to assist with profile adjustments and ease concerns of how this method of acquisition would impact the collection. The Working Group is monitoring the program and gathering data to assess the impact of PDA. In addition to collecting information about titles loaded and titles purchased, an online survey to assess user response to e-books is continuing. Western and Ingram have continued to work together closely to ensure the program is successful and to make profile adjustments as necessary.
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 | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.010 |
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".