Folksonomies, Social Tagging and Scholarly Articles / Les folksonomies, l'étiquetage social et les articles scientifiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article will discuss the potential role of folksonomies and social tagging in the information control of scholarly articles. The article reviews claims that folksonomies may replace traditional indexing, criticisms of folksonomies and suggestions for their improvement. The primary conclusion is that, although folksonomies may not replace traditional thesaurus-based indexing, social tagging, as a means of both organizing scholarly articles and by drawing together groups of scholars interested in the same, and especially emergent, fields, can provide a useful method of information control by means of scholarly communication The conclusions draw upon the 1968 book by Patrick Wilson Two Kinds of Power: An Essay in Bibliographic Control.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".