Bibliographic record
Abstract
The knowledge organization (KO) process of representing something identifiable typically involves creating a surrogate. The surrogate brings together the thing and the knowledge organization system (KOS). Therefore, we decided to focus on the surrogate and its role in the process of representation. In current practice KOS govern the creation of the surrogate. This something being represented is typically, but not necessarily, an information resource. It may also be artistic, tangible, spiritual, etc., knowledge organization systems meant to organize surrogates that represent something identifiable. A knowledge organization professional (KOP) selects what aspects of the thing to include in the representation. The knowledge organization experts/establishment (KOE) are responsible for the development of the context in which surrogates are created. The KOE are key drivers in determining process, and in developing and maintaining standards. Traditional practices are intended to ensure consistency and uniformity of interpretation and application across a range of physical and digital discourses. This context can be considered anew as postcolonial critic Homi Bhabha’s concept of the Third Space (1994).
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".