Institutional repositories in Canadian post‐secondary institutions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine and provide an insight into Canadian post‐secondary institutional repositories (IRs) with respect to user interface features and knowledge organization systems (KOS) used. Design/methodology/approach The approach is to explore all Canadian post‐secondary institutions and their user interfaces to establish the type of searching and browsing features they have used and whether or not they have made use of KOS such as subject heading lists or classification schemes. Findings A directory of 27 IRs in Canada is created. Incorporation of KOS in institutional repository is evaluated. The examination is focuses on accessibility, searching, KOS use, and retrieval. Evaluation shows that few IRs have incorporated complex KOS such as controlled vocabularies. Browsing and searching options are available, but user interfaces are usually not modified to enhance information retrieval. Originality/value This is the first paper examining Canadian IRs from the perspectives of searching, browsing and the use of KOS.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.043 | 0.098 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it