Bibliographic record
Abstract
As more books, journals, and newspapers make the inevitable transition to the electronic format, academics get the sense that the only scholarly materials one really needs can be found in the digital realm. Through the imagined voice of the Journal des Savants —the world's oldest scholarly journal still active today—this article brings to the surface valid concerns about print scarcity, familiar terrain for not only Europeanists but for anyone who works in area studies. It objects to conventional metrics for determining scholarly value and reconfirms known perils of relying solely on the mass-digitization efforts of Google Books. Most importantly, the article questions an over-reliance on digital preservation repositories such as LOCKSS, CLOCKSS, Portico, and HathiTrust—key players in the so-called Cloud Library, or external network of trusted digital library collection and service providers. The push toward cloud-sourced collections comes at a time when research libraries are hastily embarking on ambitious cooperative regional initiatives to systematically de-duplicate their costly, problematic, redundant, and very much terrestrial print collections.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.006 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".