MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040552582 · doi:10.7710/2162-3309.1102

Library-Press Collaborations: A Study Taken on Behalf of the University of Arizona

2014· article· en· W2040552582 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of AlbertaKent State UniversityUniversity of North TexasOregon State UniversityUniversity of ArizonaJohns Hopkins UniversityAssociation of Research LibrariesSyracuse UniversityNorthwestern UniversityUtah State UniversityPurdue University
KeywordsScholarly communicationLibrary sciencePublishingGeneral partnershipSociologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceManagementLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaScholarly communication
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
gptScholarly communication
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.010
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.167 · 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