MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081392868 · doi:10.1300/j104v34n01_09

“If I Knew Then What I Know Now”: UNCG LIS Graduates' Perspectives on Cataloging Education

2002· article· en· W2081392868 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Beatrice Kovacs, Nancy Dayton

Bibliographic record

VenueCataloging & Classification Quarterly · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Science and Information Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCatalogingLibrary scienceQuarter (Canadian coin)Medical educationComputer scienceMedicineHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY The debate over whether cataloging courses should be required has continued for many years between faculties in various ‘library’ schools. To gauge the value of the required UNCG cataloging course and its impact on their professional duties, graduates of the UNCG MLIS program were surveyed during the last quarter of 2001. Of the 191 respondents, whether they had positions as catalogers or not, the overwhelming majority (89%) felt that such a course is essential and should be required.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designQualitative
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCataloging & Classification QuarterlySame topicLibrary Science and Information SystemsFrench-language works237,207