MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068520712 · doi:10.5703/1288284314759

Making the most of the Center for Research Libraries: A Members Roundtable

2012· article· en· W2068520712 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Claire Vandenburg, Sylvia Andrychuk, Mary Wilke

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityPurdue Pharma (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutreachSession (web analytics)Center (category theory)Presentation (obstetrics)Library scienceSouth carolinaResearch centerEngineeringComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceMedicinePublic administrationLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This presentation was given at a Lively Lunch session at the Charleston Conference in Charleston, South Carolina on 5 November 2009. Co-presented with Mary Wilke, Member Liaison and Outreach Services Director, the Center for Research Libraries.

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

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0340.004
Scholarly communication0.0190.017
Open science0.0040.026
Research integrity0.0280.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1670.071

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 head0.306
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.147 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207