MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1829537742 · doi:10.18438/b8b590

Getting to the Source: a Survey of Quantitative Data Sources Available to the Everyday Librarian: Part I: Web Server Log Analysis

2007· article· en· W1829537742 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lisa Goddard

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb visibility and informetrics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorld Wide WebComputer scienceTransaction logServerWeb log analysis softwareProxy serverDatabaseWeb pageWeb 2.0Web API

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the first part of a two-part article that provides a survey of data sources which are likely to be immediately available to the typical practitioner who wishes to engage in statistical analysis of collections and services within his or her own library. Part I outlines the data elements which can be extracted from web server logs, and discusses web log analysis tools. Part II looks at logs, reports, and data sources from proxy servers, resource vendors, link resolvers, federated search engines, institutional repositories, electronic reference services, and the integrated library system.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.198
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicWeb visibility and informetricsFrench-language works237,207