Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Tag as an Access Point in a Public Library OPAC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to compare the retrieval effectiveness of using tag as an access point as against subject heading or keyword in a public library OPAC. Thirty queries were searched in Oakville Public Library, and tag retrieved a fewer number of items per query than keyword or subject. However, there was no significant difference in the average precision values.L’objectif de cette étude est de comparer l’efficacité du repérage à l’aide des étiquettes comme point d’accès à celui des vedettes matières ou des mots-clés d’un OPAC de bibliothèque publique. Trente requêtes ont été analysées à la bibliothèque publique d’Oakville et le repérage par étiquette a retourné moins de résultats par requête que les mots-clés ou les vedettes matières. Cependant, aucune différence significative n’a été notée pour les valeurs de précision moyenne.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.060 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".