Developing FRBR‐based library catalogs for users (sponsored by SIG/CR)
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
Abstract Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) has a direct impact on the library and information science community in the areas of information organization, information representation, and system design. Although FRBR offers great potential for libraries to develop catalogs that function more effectively to help users access bibliographic data, there has been a lack of both guidance in FRBR implementation and FRBR user research in related development. In this session, panelists presenting three different projects will discuss how they implemented FRBR in library catalogs and what user research they have done to inform system design and to evaluate the effectiveness of the FRBR systems. This panel will help address some key questions about FRBR research and development: (1) To what extent does the FRBR model represent how users perceive bibliographic data? (2) How can FRBR be implemented in library catalogs? (3) How are FRBR‐based systems helpful to users?
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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