MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012203875 · doi:10.5703/1288284315298

“Access Versus Ownership” Revisited: The Quinnipiac University Libraries Short-Term Loan Project

2014· article· en· W2012203875 on OpenAlexaff
Charles Munro Getchell, David Swords, June DeGennaro

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Canadian institutionsPurdue Pharma (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoanSpace (punctuation)Library scienceHistoryComputer scienceSociologyWorld Wide WebManagementBusinessFinanceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Challenged by a historically small monographs collection, a considerable growth in the number of students and academic programs, and faced with space limitations in the stacks, Quinnipiac University librarians began their large-scale investment in e-books in January 2011. Initially, we subscribed to ebrary’s Academic Complete collection. That same year, we began a conversation with EBL and its then Vice President of Sales, Dr. David Swords. It was our desire to compare a subscription approach with a patron-driven acquisitions strategy as we further examined the place of e-books in our libraries. Initially, in 2012, we offered EBL titles published from 2010–2012. Yet, questions remained around the purchase of e-books even when our patrons used EBL titles. An e-book, used but once or twice took up no shelf space, but it represented a purchase—funds spent. In ownership, it also represented a unit that required care; feeding; and, quite possibly, weeding. Discussions with our colleagues at Fairfield University about their short-term loan (STL) strategy intrigued us, and we are indebted to them for sharing data, observations, and issues encountered. In October 2012, Quinnipiac’s Arnold Bernhard Library expanded its own STL initiative, making available the entire EBL catalog and adhering almost completely to STL activity. That is, we bought almost no e-books but made more than 300,000 academic titles available to our patrons. Charles Getchell, former Director of the Bernhard Library, Quinnipiac; June DeGennaro, Collection Management Librarian, Quinnipiac; and David Swords, EBL-Ebook Library/ProQuest will share with you key elements of the planning, implementation, and outcome assessment of this full-fledged STL program at Quinnipiac University. Surprises, discoveries, and future plans will be shared as well. We remain intrigued, as, at present, only three known academic libraries in North America have this valuable access strategy in place.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0310.032
Scholarly communication0.0350.037
Open science0.0060.027
Research integrity0.0070.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.002

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLibrary Collection Development and Digital ResourcesFrench-language works237,207