Bibliographies and Notes as a Separate Online Publication: A Novel Trend in Support of Scholarly Publishing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The economics of scholarly publishing have been affected in a number of ways by the Internet as both a reference tool and a publishing medium. The low costs and convenience of online serial subscriptions, research databases and scanned full-text reproductions are of great value to scholars. Voluminous compendiums like the Dictionary of Canadian Biography are also now available electronically, notably on CD-ROM, indexed and fully searchable. On the other hand, monographs and edited volumes usually appear in their traditional print format. A novel variation, however, has emerged: online access to a book's academic apparatus, exemplified by this year's release, The University of Toronto: A History - Notes. This structural separation serves up a less costly, hence more accessible monograph, while the endnotes may be consulted gratis via the Web or shelved in hardcopy format beside the book in archives and libraries. But some have perceived a downside. The merits of this innovation were hotly debated through two New York Times articles, an anthology chapter, and the listserv of North American scholarly publishers. This article summarizes the pros and cons.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Scholarly communication Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Scholarly communication Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | high |
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 | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.291 | 0.547 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".