MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048096141 · doi:10.1086/675703

The Tenacious Book, Part 2: Publishers’ Views on the Once and Future State of the Art Book

2014· article· en· W2048096141 on OpenAlex
D. Vanessa Kam

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArt Documentation Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt History and Market Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisionDocumentationReading (process)State (computer science)Visual artsArchitectureLibrary scienceContent (measure theory)Media studiesArt historyArtSociologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an effort to provide a more complete description of the state of collecting in art and architecture libraries today, the author interviewed five publishers for their supply-side perspectives. Based in Europe and the United States, the publishers provide a glimpse into how their programs are functioning today, the challenges they are facing, and the digital content they have produced or would like to produce in the future. The interviews also captured their visions about the potential for new digital content to animate visual art discourse, and what elements of the book—and indeed the experience of reading art books—they would like preserved. This is part two of a two-part article in this issue of Art Documentation.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.185 · 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