"Criteria for Selecting Electronic Books in an Academic Library: Will we ever need to buy paper again?"
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
Based on the assumption that all books will soon be available in both electronic and paper formats, selections librarians will soon be faced with a format decision for each title they purchase. The work of Summerfield, Mandel and Kantor at Columbia University has given us some early information about the ways in which academics use electronic materials. They identified length of use (read little vs read much) as being a defining factor in a scholar's preference for electronic or paper format 1 . With this factor in mind, qualitative research was undertaken at the University of Alberta to determine whether or not there are general or specific criteria which would help selectors determine which books would be read little or read much by faculty. Faculty members in a variety of subject areas were introduced to netLibrary or ENGnetBASE publications. They were then asked a series of questions about their potential use of the materials. The explanations for their choices were noted and revealed patterns of factors affecting their choices. These patterns form some preliminary criteria for selectors who need to choose between e-books and paper books.
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 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it