MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2461694268 · doi:10.3968/7672

On the Analysis of Library Information Ethics and the Standard Construction in the Era of Big Data

2015· article· en· W2461694268 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicBig Data Technologies and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation ethicsBig dataPersonally identifiable informationThe InternetInternet privacyInformation securityFreedom of informationComputer scienceSociologyPublic relationsEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceWorld Wide WebComputer securityLawEngineeringData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the advent of the Internet and the arrival of the era of big data, it brought the community convenience and also the problem of information ethics. Based on the analysis of the phenomenon of information ethics, this paper points out that the Problem of information ethics is mainly reflected in three aspects: equality and freedom of access to information, user privacy and information security, and information organization,moreover, put forward to develop the corresponding information ethics standards and guidelines, to carry out the library staff and users of information ethics education, and enhance the awareness of information ethics, and full use of technology protection measures.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.452
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.259
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.161 · 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