MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970272431 · doi:10.1108/cb-05-2014-0025

Indie media and digital community collaborations in public libraries

2014· article· en· W1970272431 on OpenAlexaff
Jen Pecoskie, Heather Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueCollection Building · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingDigital mediaWorld Wide WebOriginalityElectronic publishingCollections managementCollection developmentComputer scienceDigital contentDigital librarySocial mediaNew mediaSociologyThe InternetPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – This paper aims to examine the current state of collecting with emphasis on small, independent and local digital media for the purpose of exploring librarians’ tools to develop unique collections with these types of cultural products included. Design/methodology/approach – This conceptual paper is based on examination of the current state of publishing and digital media, of case profiles of independent digital content providers, of case profiles of public libraries using digital media to expand collections and of collection developers’ tools, including reviewing sources. Findings – With regard to expanding collections from small, independent and local digital content providers, user-generated content (UGC) is offered as a tool for collection developers to use alongside other traditional reviewing sources. UGC allows for embedding collective voices into collection development practices to capture digital cultural products from these providers. Originality/value – This paper reflects on the current state of digital content creation and publishing, including the limitations and possibilities in place for the future of public library collections from both large publishing companies and smaller media creators. Non-traditional digital media are cultural products produced for consumption and reception; therefore, we consider how these materials fit into contemporary collections, how they are connected to public libraries and subsequently are made available to library users.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0200.013
Scholarly communication0.0270.015
Open science0.0020.025
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollection BuildingSame topicDigital Games and MediaFrench-language works237,207