MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985536361 · doi:10.1080/03615260802398694

Are Standards and Distance Education to be the Saviors of the Library Profession, and Will NISO and ACLTS Lead the Way? or, Reflections on the NISO/ALCTS Webinar Series in Light of the Report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control

2008· article· en· W1985536361 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Serials Librarian · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary scienceAgency (philosophy)Library of congressWorld Wide WebComputer sciencePolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes NOTES AND REFERENCES 1. Library of Congress. Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. On the Record: Report of The Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, January 9, 2008), 39. Available at: http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-ontherecord-jan08-final.pdf 2. Ibid., 39. 3. Overview of NISO Workrooms at http://www.niso.org/workrooms (accessed July 25, 2008). 4. On the Record, 37–38. 5. Karen A. Wetzel, “Demystifying Library Standards”; slide 8. 6. As a Canadian and nonmember of ALCTS, I am much more apt to go to LC's website or NISO's website in search of serials standards. 7. Association for Library Collections and Technical Services. Serials Standards Bibliography. Available at: http://www.lita.org/ALCTSTemplate.cfm?Section=alctssectionscont&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=69094 (accessed July 20, 2008). 8. ISSN Agency, “Total Number of Records in the ISSN Register.” Available at: http://www.issn.org/files/issn/statistiques/total_numberofrecords.pdf 9. ISSN Agency, “What is an ISSN-L?” Available at: http://www.issn.org/2-22637-What-is-an-ISSN-L.php 10. The SICI standard is available at: http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Z39-6.pdf 11. NISO, ANSI/NISO Z39.43–1993. Available at: http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Z39-43.pdf, 1. 12. Library of Congress, MARC 21 Format for Holdings Data (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Network Development and MARC Standards Office, 2007 update), introduction. 13. NISO, ANSI/NISO Z39.41–1997. Available at: http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Z39-41.pdf, foreword. 14. Karen A. Wetzel, “Demystifying Library Standards”; slide 16. 15. Pamela Bluh, “Demystifying Library Standards”; slide 7. 16. Karen A. Wetzel, “Demystifying Library Standards”; slide 17. 17. American Library Association, The State of America's Libraries: A Report from the American Library Association. Available at: http://www.ala.org/ala/pio/presscentera/piopresskits/2008statereport/draft-0001c-press.pdf, 10.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.218 · 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