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 examine the emerging field of reference in virtual worlds and attempts to determine its place among existing reference services. The virtual world of Second Life is the focus for these virtual world services. Advantages of virtual world reference are highlighted and drawbacks are discussed. Design/methodology/approach The paper examines two existing virtual world reference projects in an attempt to determine both the feasibility of virtual world reference and the level of need for such a service. Findings Both virtual world reference projects were successful and appear to indicate there is a need for reference within Second Life. Research limitations/implications Virtual worlds and reference within these realms are at the very early stages. There is room for detailed analysis of issues raised within the paper. Practical implications The paper outlines the steps of creating a collaborative and institutional virtual world reference service, including training and implications. Originality/value This paper examines the emerging field of research and practice in virtual worlds and will be of significant interest to reference librarians.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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