MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053376461 · doi:10.1080/01639374.2011.548053

Do Provenance-Based Classification Schemes Have a Role in Libraries and Information Centres? The Case of Classifying Government Publications

2011· article· en· W2053376461 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCataloging & Classification Quarterly · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNotationClassification schemeComputer scienceGovernment (linguistics)Scheme (mathematics)PublishingWorld Wide WebUniversality (dynamical systems)Information retrievalLibrary scienceLibrary classificationPolitical scienceLinguisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Libraries and information centres use often multiple classification schemes for organizing their collections. In Canadian full depository libraries government publications can be organized in collections using a government publishing office's own notation, knowledge organization notation, or other notational scheme designed especially for government publications. Provenance-based schemes such as CODOC are attractive for their universality and for work-related purposes that may be influenced by financial challenges. However, libraries that use multiple notations for government publications may open the potential for intellectual disruption to information retrieval practices in either physical or virtual browsing.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.197 · 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