Curating print collections in the digital age
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
Purpose – Purpose: As collection development in research libraries becomes increasingly homogeneous and “e-preferred”, it is our heritage collections that differentiate us and anchor the physical presence of our institutions. These valuable heritage resources, vital for teaching, researching, and learning are unfortunately too often inaccessible, uncatalogued, and ultimately undiscoverable. This paper focuses on the curation of special collections as a means of exposing hidden collections and discusses practical steps undertaken to highlight unique print materials in the digital age. Design/methodology/approach – This case study describes the transformation of a hidden collection into a teaching collection through the exhibition of uncatalogued Islamic manuscripts, their associated digital component and the resulting faculty–librarian collaboration. Findings – By sharing print collections through exhibitions with an associated digital component, we are both increasing the visibility of, and improving access to the material. Originality/value – This case study outlines a successful approach to exposing hidden collections to support an innovative teaching and learning environment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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