Pay-per-view in interlibrary loan: a case study
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
QUESTION: Can purchasing articles from publishers be a cost-effective method of interlibrary loan (ILL) for libraries owing significant copyright royalties? SETTING: The University of Nebraska Medical Center's McGoogan Library of Medicine provides the case study. METHOD: Completed ILL requests that required copyright payment were identified for the first quarter of 2009. The cost of purchasing these articles from publishers was obtained from the publishers' websites and compared to the full ILL cost. A pilot period of purchasing articles from the publisher was then conducted. RESULTS: The first-quarter sample data showed that approximately $500.00 could have been saved if the articles were purchased from the publisher. The pilot period and continued purchasing practice have resulted in significant savings for the library. CONCLUSION: Purchasing articles directly from the publisher is a cost-effective method for libraries burdened with high copyright royalty payments.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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