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 OpenAlexaff
Michel Castagné

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.126
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.126
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0230.039
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.005

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207