The Impact of E-Readers and E-Books on the Library of Congress and the US Copyright Office
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
Consumer acceptance of e-readers, tablets, and e-books has been covered extensively by the press. These trends have been a significant business opportunity for some authors, publishers, e-reader or tablet manufacturers, or distributors because a new market has emerged and ‘new’ readers have been attracted to the portability and the price of e-readers and e-books. But there is a ‘dark side of the moon.’ E-readers and e-books have emerged as ‘disruptive technologies,’ resulting in a reduction in the number of book outlets and printed books sold in the United States. In this research paper, we investigate the current and potential impact of e-books on the Library of Congress and the US Copyright Office, including the budgets, staffing, and operations of the Library of Congress and the US Copyright Office, and the need to digitize the vast book collection of the Library of Congress. This paper presents a series of recommendations for both the Library of Congress and the US Copyright Office.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.060 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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