MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049745400 · doi:10.6017/ital.v31i2.1848

Academic Uses of Google Earth and Google Maps in a Library Setting

2012· article· en· W2049745400 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.

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

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation Technology and Libraries · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographic Information Systems Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularityWorld Wide WebPromotion (chess)Computer scienceProduct (mathematics)Academic libraryInformation retrievalLibrary sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last several years, Google Earth and Google Maps have been adopted by many academic institutions as an academic research and mapping tool. The authors were interested in discovering how popular the Google mapping products are in the academic library setting. A survey was conducted to establish the mapping products’ popularity, and type of use in an academic library setting. Results show that over 90% of the respondents use Google Earth and Google Maps either to help answer research questions, to create and access finding aids, for instructional purposes or for promotion and marketing. The authors recommend expanding the mapping product’s user base to include all reference and liaison librarians.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.011
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.227 · 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