MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984677904 · doi:10.1108/10650750210418190

Dublin Core use in libraries: a survey

2002· article· en· W1984677904 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOCLC Systems & Services · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsAlberta Library
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCore (optical fiber)InteroperabilityImplementationComputer scienceMetadataFlexibility (engineering)World Wide WebLibrary scienceSoftware engineeringTelecommunicationsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An e‐mail survey was conducted by the Dublin Core Libraries Working Group to collect examples of Dublin Core use in libraries, and to provide input for the development of a Dublin Core application profile for libraries. A total of 29 responses were received from nine countries, describing 33 separate implementations of Dublin Core. The most commonly cited reasons for selecting Dublin Core were its international acceptance, flexibility and likelihood of future interoperability. Each of the 15 core elements was in use by between 59 percent and 97 percent of the projects in the survey. There was a high incidence (73 percent) of projects that use metadata elements in addition to the DC elements and approved qualifiers. The two most widely reported challenges involved in implementing Dublin Core were that there are too few elements and qualifiers, and the lack of usage guidelines.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.085 · 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