MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2181932714 · doi:10.14288/1.0075768

Institutional repository software comparison: DSpace, EPrints, Digital Commons, Islandora and Hydra

2013· article· en· W2181932714 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDSPACEComputer scienceSoftwareCommonsWorld Wide WebLernaean HydraInternet privacySoftware engineeringOperating systemPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The report is an environmental scan of institutional repository software packages and frameworks. DSpace, EPrints, Digital Commons and Fedora Commons were selected based on their statistics in the Registry of Open Access Repositories, as well as their overall suitability for a large research library. In order to discuss the Fedora framework in practical terms, two promising Fedora-based projects were selected: Islandora and Hydra.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.022
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it