MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1934180095

‘한 책, 한 도시’독서운동의 동향과 의의-해외 사례를 중심으로-

2004· article· ko· W1934180095 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
윤정옥

Bibliographic record

Venue한국문헌정보학회지 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldEngineering
TopicMilitary Technology and Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

이 연구의 목적은 최근 확산되고 있는 ‘한 책 , 한 도시 운동의 사례를 살펴봄으로써 지역사회의 특성과 결합된 독서 운동으로서의 의미를 고찰하고. 전체적인 ‘한 책‘ 운동의 현황을 분석하는 것이다 미국 시애틀의 ‘시애틀 온 시민이 책 한권을 같이 읽는다면 사카고의 ‘한 책 한 시카고 . 캘리포니아주의 ‘분노의 포도 읽기 및 캐나다의 ‘ Canada Reads' 의 사례연구를 수행하고 239개. 한 책‘ 운동의 목표. 선정 도서. 토론 지침 및 제반 프로그램의 전반적 특성을 검토하였다. ‘한 책’ 운동은 목서와 토론 중심이지만 다양한 매체와 행사를 결합한 개혁적. 지속적 독서운동이며, 공공도서관과 지역사회의 긴밀한 협조 및 다양성을 반영한 도서 선정. 프로그램의 진행 등으로 성공을 거두는 것으로 나타났다.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.025
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue한국문헌정보학회지Same topicMilitary Technology and StrategiesFrench-language works237,207