Don’t Forget the Little Publishers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the session, "Don't Forget The Little Publishers" was to illustrate to the library community and to publishers alike the opportunities to discover and subscribe to high-quality content from small to medium-sized information providers, which to date are overlooked because these information providers lack the resources to effectively market their content.Attendees came away from the session with a much broader understanding of the challenges small publishers must overcome to sell their content; what types of content they are missing; examples of a number of vehicles that are being used to get content out in the market; novel subscription/pricing alternatives; and success stories from those who manage subscriptions.Conversely, attendees also were presented with trends and challenges the library community is facing that may limit future successes, in particular collection sales.The panel concluded by not concluding a clear direction but left it open for the future, as methodologies and internal/external factors of the participants change.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.019 |
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".