MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058684638 · doi:10.1080/01639370802322853

Uniform Titles From AACR to RDA

2008· article· en· W2058684638 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

VenueCataloging & Classification Quarterly · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Science and Information Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersRural Development Administration
KeywordsCatalogingConsistency (knowledge bases)Computer scienceResource Description and AccessPoint (geometry)Information retrievalDutyResource (disambiguation)Authority controlCollocation (remote sensing)Library scienceWorld Wide WebMathematicsPolitical scienceControl (management)LawArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Even before John Fiske (1878) reminded catalogers of their “duty” to correctly identify authors with the same name, uniform headings had assumed a place and purpose in nineteenth-century catalogs. Rules for names of persons, families, corporate bodies, and places have been developed to ensure consistency of both structure and application. Catalogers agree on the importance of form when creating either uniform headings or uniform titles. Paths diverge at the point of application. Effective collocation by means of uniform titles is entirely dependent on whether or not the option to establish them is exercised. In this article, we explore how the concept and treatment of “uniform title” has evolved within Anglo-American cataloging codes, and is changing within RDA: Resource Description and Access.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.004

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 head0.238
Teacher spread0.192 · 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