Library-Press Collaborations: A Study Taken on Behalf of the University of Arizona
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND The University of Arizona Press moved under the University of Arizona Library both physically and administratively a few years ago, echoing a trend amongst university presses: 20 AAUP members now are under the administration of university libraries. To understand the new evolving relationships in scholarly communication, a review of university press and library collaborations was undertaken by the University of Arizona Press and the University of Arizona Library through the Association of Research Libraries Career Enhancement Program (ARL CEP). LITERATURE REVIEW There has been much written throughout the years on both the acrimonious and collaborative relationships between university presses and academic libraries. Much of the literature includes either editorials or case studies, with one or two major reviews of scholarly communications and the state of publishing. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT During the course of nine weeks, the ARL CEP Fellow reviewed existing literature, interviewed staff at the University of Arizona Press and Library, and conducted 27 informal interviews with library deans, press directors, and scholarly communications leaders. The interviews addressed the partnership history, structure, motivations, goals and needs, administrative support and budget decisions, key stakeholders, and thoughts on the future of their relationships as well as scholarly communications. Then University of Arizona Library and Press staff were interviewed regarding their perceptions of their roles and each other’s roles. NEXT STEPS This research report includes findings from the literature review and interviews as well as specific recommendations for the University of Arizona that will be implemented to improve and build relationships going forward.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Scholarly communication Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | low |
| gpt | Scholarly communication Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".