Sharing digital resources globally: the China‐North America Library Conference
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to report on the China‐North America Library Conference held in Beijing, China. The conference theme is Sharing Digital Resources: Challenges and Opportunities. Six sub‐themes are also intertwined with the conference theme: Resource sharing policies and perspectives; Digital infrastructure and repository technology; Research data sharing; Sharing digital preservation methods; and Shared digital access, retrieval and use. Design/methodology/approach The paper summarizes several important presentations at the conference. Findings The shared projects in this report include: National Cultural Information Resource Sharing Project; Multicultural Canada Project; Data Conservancy; National Library Digital Exchange Services; and Digital Museum Platform. Originality/value This is an original conference report which would help those who are interested in sharing digital resources on a global scale to understand the challenges, issues, and opportunities on that aspect.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it