The Changing Face of Business Information - Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: OneSource’s Response to the Business Information Resources Survey 2003
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Offers a number of comments and observations on the Business Information Resources Survey 2003 from the viewpoint of the work and experience of OneSource. A comparison is made between this Survey and selected results taken from the OneSource Information Services 2002 customer survey. Although the BIR Survey respondents indicated a decline in use of OneSource for financial information (from 19% to 7%), this finding is not supported by OneSource’s own statistics, where company financials data was found to remain the most popular type of content, client retention rates remain very high and overall usage rose considerably. OneSource saw a 23% increase in the number of active users during 2002, whilst during the same period the total number of client sites grew by 6%, suggesting a greater intensity of both users and usage within subscribing organisations and demonstrating more widespread usage of business information. Both surveys point to the fact that the roles of information professionals and the business information sector are evolving, with evidence of a more strategic approach to knowledge sharing, a commitment to the sector and a growing level of in- depth usage. Nevertheless, there are still areas of concern, particularly the lack of a true partnership and relationship between buyer and seller that is exacerbated by current economic conditions. While it is not possible to predict what 2003 will bring for the economy and the industry at large, how information professionals choose to address their future is very much in their own hands.
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".