Interlending and document supply: a review of the recent literature: 69
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to provide a review of the most recent literature concerning document supply and related matters. Design/methodology/approach The approach is based on the reading of over 150 journals as well as monographs, reports and websites. Findings The ups and downs of document supply activity are noted this quarter. Clearly there is still great potential in the lending of returnables and for excellent services backed up by good marketing. The scholarly communication system comes under intense scrutiny in the literature. Technological change is perceived to be accelerating but the hybrid library will always be present. Open access continues to develop rapidly but its direction and potential continue to divide the profession. Increasing concerns continue to be expressed about the monopolistic implications of Google and there are some stout counter‐arguments. All now depends on the legal judgment to be made in the Autumn. Originality/value The paper is a useful source of information for librarians and others interested in document supply and related matters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it