3D printing and scanning at the Dalhousie University Libraries: a pilot project
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
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe how 3D printing and scanning technology was implemented by the Dalhousie University Libraries in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Insights will be outlined about the benefits of these technologies in terms of data visualization and archival practices, as well as the potential user base for library‐centered 3D printing and scanning services. Design/methodology/approach This paper describes why the Dalhousie University Libraries purchased a 3D printer and scanner, the challenges of maintaining these technologies and instructing students in their use, and how Dalhousie faculty members and students have made use of these technologies for their own research purposes. Findings 3D printing and scanning technologies can be of use to a much wider range of Faculties than have traditionally had access to them. The unique role libraries have on university campuses allows them to function as universal access points for these technologies. By offering 3D scanning technology, they can also use this technology internally for archival purposes. Originality/value While much has been written on 3D printing and scanning technology, very little has been written about how these technologies could relate to academic libraries. This paper sets the groundwork for further exploration into how 3D technologies can improve and expand library 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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