MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006068027 · doi:10.5703/1288284314974

By Popular Demand: Building a Consortial Demand‐Driven Program

2012· article· en· W2006068027 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Canadian institutionsPurdue Pharma (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowComputer scienceService (business)Work (physics)Plan (archaeology)AllianceOn demandSet (abstract data type)Engineering managementWorld Wide WebBusinessMarketingEngineeringDatabaseMultimediaPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Orbis Cascade Alliance set out to create an e‐book program for its 36 member libraries. Unlike the single-library patron‐driven acquisition programs that we have seen in the past, this ambitious pilot needed to take into account the different discovery options and workflow requirements of 36 libraries and their varying size and technical capabilities. We will discuss the ideal makeup of an implementation team for a program of this size, how to assess the technical hurdles and what training must be provided, how to work with vendors effectively in this setting, and how to evaluate the success of a patron‐driven program, both during the program and afterward. We will include lessons learned that are applicable both to individual libraries considering patron‐driven programs and to consortia looking to provide a similar service to their libraries.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

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 communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.232 · 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