MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2293552842

From Coexistence to Convergence: Studying Partnerships and Collaboration among Libraries, Archives and Museums

2013· article· en· W2293552842 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation Research: An International Electronic Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvergence (economics)Public relationsPhenomenonProcess (computing)SociologyPolitical scienceEpistemologyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. The convergence of libraries, archives and museums is an evolving phenomenon that has garnered increased attention in the literature and professional practice over the past decade. To date, little research exists documenting the experiences of these institutions as they engage in different forms of collaboration and convergence. Method. Using a series of on-site, semi-structured interviews of professionals conducted in 2010 and 2011, the study examined initiatives involving different forms of collaboration and convergence, and different stages of the process in two institutions in Canada and three in New Zealand. Analysis. The interviews were audio recorded and a descriptive summary of each interview was prepared. We examined the summaries and identified themes within and across the institutions. Results. Findings suggest the motivations that led to the various projects reflected the discourse, beliefs, and values of the professions at the time the projects took place, and occasionally, administrative expediency. Aspects that emerged from the interviews correlate broadly to six themes: to serve users better; to support scholarly activity; to take advantage of technological developments; to take into account the need for

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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.444
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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.198 · 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