MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990542265 · doi:10.1108/01435120810917350

The Irish Research electronic Library initiative: levelling the playing‐field?

2008· article· en· W1990542265 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary Management · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrishNegotiationPublic relationsQuarter (Canadian coin)Library scienceSociologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The Irish Research electronic Library (IReL) is a nationally funded electronic research library providing online access to full text articles from 1,000s of peer‐reviewed publications in a range of disciplines. The aim of this paper is to examine the opportunities that have arisen for academic libraries at a local level in terms of how they expose resources and promote the initiative. It discusses the challenges that have arisen as libraries enhance, or indeed introduce, value added services to their research community. It examines the results of an in‐depth national survey, which yielded invaluable insights into how Irish researchers were using library services. Finally, it reflects on the challenges libraries face in facilitating and nurturing research behaviour. Design/methodology/approach In the first quarter of 2007, seven university libraries asked their researchers for feedback on how they use IReL resources and their awareness of the initiative in the form of a national survey. These results and in particular the feedback from DCU researchers are further analysed. Focus groups and visits to research centres also provided more in‐depth analysis. Findings The paper finds that a collaborative approach to the negotiation of a single national licence for seven academic libraries, with associated training and a discount for consortium contracts, has been highly successful. However, it has also posed significant challenges for all libraries in terms of ensuring that the resources are fully exploited and that the necessary support structures are in place to facilitate the provision of appropriate services to the growing research community. Originality/value The paper will be useful to libraries planning services for fourth‐level researchers and in particular, services that promote access to online resources.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication, Open science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0060.045
Open science0.0090.008
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.191 · 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