University of Alberta Libraries Interlibrary Loan Department – Creating new relationships, locally and globally
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify the value and benefits from newly developed relationships between the University of Alberta Libraries’ Interlibrary Loan Department and other institutions through the delivery of new services. Design/methodology/approach The paper is a descriptive review of the new services provided, including a centralized interlibrary loan service for members of the NEOS Consortium and an article delivery service for Can Tho University Library (Vietnam), an overview of the implementation of the services and a discussion of the value and benefits created. Findings A single-point of intake for interlibrary loan requests for a group of academic libraries can be implemented successfully with few drawbacks, providing benefits to all the participants. An article delivery service to an institution that provides no interlibrary loan services provides value through access to new resources and demonstrates not to be a burden on the provider; yet, this paper demonstrates that the primary value is in learning about their patrons’ needs. Practical implications Other institutions could replicate these services and relationships. Originality/value Single-point of intake for interlibrary loan in academic consortial environments has neither been demonstrated in the literature nor has any component of interlibrary loan been described to support international initiatives to assist libraries in disadvantaged countries.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".