LOEX‐of‐the‐West 2012: creative landscapes in southern California
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to introduce the special issue of Reference Services Review entitled “LOEX‐of‐the‐West 2012: creative landscapes in southern California”. Design/methodology/approach Over 160 librarians from across the USA and Canada attended the biennial LOEX‐of‐the‐West (LOTW) conference on the campus of Woodbury University in Burbank, California from June 6‐8, 2012. LOTW strives for an atmosphere in which speakers can share innovative ideas and open a dialog with other librarians. Findings Traditionally, after each LOEX‐of‐the‐West (LOTW) conference a number of papers based on session presentations are submitted to Reference Services Review ( RSR ) for publication. Building on their work at the 2012 preconference, Editors of RSR , Ms Eleanor Mitchell and Ms Sarah Barbara Watstein, have worked closely with presenters to transform their talks to published papers. After going through a double blind peer review process, seven papers have been selected for publication in this issue. Originality/value The authors/Guest Editors are excited to share these papers in this special LOEX‐of‐the‐West issue of Reference Services Review . It is indeed just as the conference theme stated “Information Literacy for all Terrains”.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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 it