Measuring use of licensed electronic resources
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 Entering into its 11th year, the Ontario Council of University Libraries' Scholars Portal ( www.scholarsportal.info/ ) is in its second year of systematic evaluation of its content and services. This paper aims to examine this iteration. Design/methodology/approach This paper focuses on the 2010‐2011 results and provides a brief description of the differences between the two implementations. Findings This paper presents key findings from the OCUL data analysis that address the research questions proposed by the study. How does the use of consortial products compare to that of individually‐licensed content? What can we infer from those results about the profile and visibility of these collections? How are patrons discovering different formats such as e‐books? Who are these patrons, and why are they using electronic collections? The paper examines the implications of running the survey in mandatory and optional modes, the characteristics of the non‐respondents of web‐based, intercept surveys in the academic institution, the efficacy of surveying users through an open‐URL resolver and other issues that present themselves when attempting to survey a large user base across a consortium versus an individual institution. Originality/value The originality and value of this survey are the following: the use of SFX as the instrument for the intercept survey on a consortial scale; the use of the every n th sampling plan; the longitudinal comparison of results collected over time from a large research consortium; the purpose of use by consortium, by institution, and by top ten vendors; the examination of ebook usage by classification of user and by purpose of use; and the ability of this methodology to provide a continuous evaluation of the use of networked electronic resources.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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