Identifying the Core Periodical Literature of the Agricultural Communications Documentation Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Agricultural communications” is an emerging field which is naturally both part of the “agriculture” and “communications” literature. However, it is much broader than just a subset of each. The coverage of standard databases such as CAB Abstracts and Communication Abstracts, while a good start, does not sufficiently cover the field. The Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has, over the last quarter century, worked to help define and collect this literature, by identifying relevant documents and entering them into a Web-searchable Microsoft Access database. An analysis of this database reveals important clues concerning the literature of agricultural communications. Of the nearly 30,000 documents within the ACDC collection, periodical articles comprise a little over one half, from a core list of 45 periodicals within the ACDC collection. More than one half of these core periodicals are outside the traditional agriculture and life science literature; approximately one third are scholarly journals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.097 | 0.124 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".