Exploring How Library Publishing Services Facilitate Scholarly Communication
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
Scholarly publishing plays a critical role in promotion, tenure, scholarly recognition, and certification of research quality at academic institutions. Given the importance of scholarly publishing, several libraries have launched library publishing services to support formal and informal scholarly communication. Despite the growing popularity and the benefits of library publishing services, few studies have explored the relationship between library publishing services and scholarly communication. This study aims to identify and examine the factors of library publishing services that facilitate scholarly communication. Based on Roosendaal and Geurts's (1997) four functions of scholarly communication, this study analyses and categorizes the library publishing services of eight research university libraries in North America. The registration function is reflected in publishing, intellectual property, and licensing services. The archiving function is reflected in digitization and repository services. The certification function is reflected in expert review and research support services. The awareness function is reflected in knowledge-sharing-platform and search aid services.
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 | 0.095 | 0.166 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.065 | 0.100 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.653 | 0.849 |
| Open science | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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