Work-to-Work Bibliographic Relationships from FRBR Point of View: A Canadian Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines bibliographic relationships between Canadian publications published in 2009 available in AMICUS (Canadian National Catalogue). It consisted of categorizing bibliographic relationships in the taxonomy of work-to-work relationships available in the FRBR Final Report. The study indicates frequencies of occurrences of bibliographic relationships based on manifestations found in AMICUS.Cette étude examine les relations bibliographiques entre les documents canadiens publiés en 2009 et répertoriées dans AMICUS (le catalogue national du Canada). L’objectif était de catégoriser les relations bibliographiques suivant la taxinomie des relations entre une œuvre et une œuvre disponible dans les SFNB : Rapport final. L’étude présente les fréquences d’occurrences de relations bibliographiques selon les manifestations trouvées dans AMICUS.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.058 | 0.125 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".