Exploring connections of the biblioblogosphere
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The neologism, the biblioblogsphere, has emerged in recent years to describe the institutional publication of blogs of libraries and the personal, typically professionally‐oriented publication of blogs by librarians. Much literature on this trend has been anecdotal in nature, though a growing body of research literature has emerged in the past several years. This paper contributes to the latter development, reporting the findings from an exploratory study mapping connectivity in the biblioblogosphere, the first part of a planned, extended research study on scholarly communication in the biblioblogosphere. Patterns of interlinking within a sample of 1,606 library blogs were studied. The outgoing links of posts published to these blogs over one year were compared with the URLs of all blogs in the sample. It was found that the majority of the sampled blogs (80%) did not link to any other blog within the sample. Interlinked blogs (20%) tended to cluster according to library type, blog subject or geographical proximity. Approximately 1/3 of these were located within a single massive network consisting of 125 “nodes,” or blogs, while the rest were in dyads and triads, representing networks comprised of two or three blogs, respectively. Findings suggest that the biblioblogosphere conforms to the locally dense, globally sparse structure of blog networks established by previous studies. Personal blogs) are more likely to be located within a network than institutional blogs. These findings suggest that individual bloggers are actively shaping the networked, hyper‐linked structure of the library blogosphere, while institutional blogs having less overall impact.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".