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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".