MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012566679 · doi:10.1353/scp.2012.0005

Moving: The Transom

2012· article· en· W2012566679 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
William W. Savage

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNothingSalaryDeskLawSociologyPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MovingThe Transom William W. Savage Jr. (bio) The nine-storey building housing my academic department and several others was, as of January 2011, and depending upon whom you believed, either on the verge of collapse or merely in need of structural tweaking. In any case, we faculty were told to clean out our offices and leave the building by the second week in May. My office contained thirteen seven-foot bookcases filled to overflowing, five file cabinets bulging at the seams, and a desk so laden with paper that its surface had not been visible for years. So, during the next four months, I sorted, packed, hauled, and stored approximately two tons of printed matter, four or five cartons at a time, despite warnings issued by Mother Nature and Father Time that I should hire it done before I hurt myself. Well, not on my salary, quoth I, hyperextending this and straining that but, mercifully, tearing or breaking nothing. Some of my colleagues found my labours quite amusing, because, I gather, they are minimalists in the matter of book ownership. Inasmuch as the books in my office were overflow from home, I suppose I must qualify as a maximalist, tending to behave in bookstores like a boozer in a brewery. I shall not, however, take twelve steps or make amends for any of it. The experience of moving the contents of my office did bring a certain enlightenment: I was considerably less than halfway through my labors when it occurred to me that e-books possessed a virtue that I had not appreciated fully theretofore, namely, that they weigh only as much as the gizmo upon which they are read. No wonder librarians admire e-books so much. Clear out those shelves and the unhandy arte-facts that have so long sat upon them, load up on e-books, install a plenitude of servers, and pretty soon every library in the world will be the biggest library in the world. No need to re-shelve anything. No need to catalogue. No need to know the alphabet or LC numbers or what to do [End Page 243] with Melvil Dewey’s decimals. No more dust allergies. No risk of hernia. Library science lives up to its name, and never mind that the adoption of e-books will add thousands of librarians to the unemployment rolls. Progress necessitates obsolescence, I reckon. Then, still packing cartons, I began to wonder about the particulars of e-research in e-books. What if I needed to compare, say, five e-sources? Would I have to examine the materials in sequence? Would I need access to five e-readers? Is there a device allowing five e-pages from five e-sources to appear legibly on the same screen at the same time? So many questions. And so few answers, even from young colleagues who, chronology suggested, should know about such things. Indeed, one of them remarked to me (while I was yet hip-deep in books, bubble wrap, and build-’em-yourself cardboard boxes) that it might help to think of those who embrace e-books as members of something resembling a cargo cult. “Holy cow!” I thought. “John Frum Kindle? A continually anticipated airlift of digital goodies to an expectant and ever-hopeful population?” What, in point of fact, had I heard about e-books? A great many discouraging things, that’s what. An anthropologist told me that e-books don’t have page numbers or indices, and that if you wanted to look for something you’d read yesterday, the odds were that you wouldn’t be able to find it today. A colleague told me that a book he’d written as a collateral text had been issued as both a paperback and an e-book. The virtue of the e-manifestation apparently lay in the fact that students could download it to all sorts of gizmos, and once they’d read it, they had only to push a button and, poof, it was gone. (I could see a new student excuse looming on the horizon. I’d already heard–several times—the one about a malfunctioning computer and/or printer, invoked...

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2200.105

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scholarly PublishingSame topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207