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
Blogs, wikis, listservs, forums, social networking and other new exciting technologies provide for unprecedented possibilities for collaboration, preservation and dissemination of information. These have been traditional roles for libraries but now, more and more enthusiasts are developing their own personal corner of the information commons. As the debate on how the “Web 2.0” will impact our profession rages on, some institutions are exploring the possibilities inherent in these technologies. This session presents these concepts through concrete examples and to provide insight on how they can be used to retain patrons, restructure services and regenerate libraries into entities that engage their communities. Conference session given on Friday May 25th 2007 at the Canadian Library Association (CLA), Atlantic Provinces Library Association (APLA) and Newfoundland and Labrador Library Association (NLLA) National Conference and Trade Show in St-John's, Newfoundland (Canada).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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