Social Cataloguing Sites: Features and Implications for Cataloguing Practice and the Public Library Catalogue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International Standard Bibliographic Description elements were used to evaluate the contents of 16 social cataloguing sites’ records. The heuristics Communication, Identity, and Perception were applied to the sites’ social features. While record content was poor, the social features create a community of interest where people can share their reading interests with one another.Des éléments de la description bibliographique internationale normalisée (ISBD) ont été utilisés pour évaluer le contenu de fiches de 16 sites de catalogage social. Les règles heuristiques Communication, Identité et Perception ont été appliquées aux caractéristiques des sites sociaux. Bien que le contenu des fiches était de mauvaise qualité, les fonctions sociales ont créé une communauté d'intérêt où les gens peuvent partager leurs intérêts de lecture.
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 | 0.014 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".