MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982519358 · doi:10.5860/crl.69.1.83

<b>Carson, Bryan M.</b> <i>The Law of Libraries and Archives.</i> Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow, 2007. 395p. alk. paper, $65 (ISBN 081085189). LC 2006-20318.

2008· article· en· W1982519358 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy McCormack

Bibliographic record

VenueCollege & Research Libraries · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCopyright and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Picture this scenario: your library has been offered the chance to buy a valuable first edition from the collection of another library.The sale price is $100,000.You decline-graciously, of course.A week later, however, you learn from a confidential source that the book's actual worth is $1.5 million-much more than the seller was asking of you.On the basis of this new information, you call up the other library and say that you've changed your mind and have now decided to buy the aforesaid book.Is that library obliged to sell it to you?Or, what if, hypothetically, you had accepted the original off er and then the other library, discovering the true value of the edition, had refused to go through with the agreed-upon sale?Does your library have a legal claim?What are the other library's legal obligations?Chances are, not many librarians will encounter this kind of problem.The scenarios that are likely to occur in libraries where the majority of us work are of a much more mundane sort.Take, for example, the roofing company that tells you, on the day they are to begin replacing the leaky roof of your library, that they will be too busy to do the work, as promised.Your library is forced to find another contractor who can't begin work until February.Sadly, in January, the roof leaks worse than ever and water runs into the shelves, ruining a particular collection of books.Are you entitled to sue the first roofing company that refused to do the work?If so, what kind of money could you expect to collect if you won?The above examples, from Bryan M. Carson's The Law of Library and Archives, illustrate the types of issues that have legal consequences for a library.This book, in addition to making splendid reading, is

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablemedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollege & Research LibrariesSame topicCopyright and Intellectual PropertyFrench-language works237,207