MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1919650175 · doi:10.5931/djim.v11i0.5516

Managing Print-Based Weeding Projects in Academic Libraries

2015· article· en· W1919650175 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueDalhousie Journal of Interdisciplinary Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb and Library Services
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowWork (physics)Process (computing)Face (sociological concept)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)Academic libraryPublic relationsBusinessEngineering managementKnowledge managementWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceSociologyEngineeringLibrary scienceDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Weeding” is the process of removing information resources from a collection. As a public relations quagmire, it is one of the most challenging tasks an information manager may face. With the rise of election resources, print-based weeding projects are on the rise. It is integral that information managers have the necessary skills to carry out this endeavor. This paper examines the best practices for managing a print-based weeding project in an academic library, based on recent literature and the author’s work experience. A set of recommendations for choosing material to remove, developing workflows, managing public relations and finding solutions for discarded material are put forward.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0020.003
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.253 · 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