Reviews of Independent Press Books in <i>Counterpoise</i> and Other Publications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Counterpoise claims that it reviews books that are reviewed by other publications either infrequently or not at all, almost three-quarters of the books (74.7%) reviewed by Counterpoise are reviewed by a wide variety of other publications, including popular magazines and newspapers. Four core library review tools (Booklist, Choice, Library Journal, and Publishers Weekly) review 48.2 percent of all book titles reviewed by Counterpoise, and their reviews are favorable 74.4 percent of the time. Of the books not reviewed anywhere else except Counterpoise, more than half fall into six Library of Congress classification categories, including E (History: America), HQ (The family. Marriage. Women), HV (Social pathology. Social and public welfare. Criminology), and HD (Industries. Land use. Labor). In addition, there is a subset of titles that are frequently and positively reviewed by popular and academic publications, but not by reviewing journals commonly used by librarians.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.146 | 0.084 |
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".