MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2527458386 · doi:10.18438/b80s5k

Title, Description, and Subject are the Most Important Metadata Fields for Keyword Discoverability

2016· article· en· W2527458386 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laura Costello

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetadataComputer scienceDiscoverabilityWorld Wide WebThe InternetInformation retrievalSubject (documents)Digital library

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Review of:
 Yang, L. (2016). Metadata effectiveness in internet discovery: An analysis of digital collection metadata elements and internet search engine keywords. College & Research Libraries, 77(1), 7-19. http://doi.org/10.5860/crl.77.1.7 
 
 Objective – To determine which metadata elements best facilitate discovery of digital collections.
 
 Design – Case study.
 
 Setting – A public research university serving over 32,000 graduate and undergraduate students in the Southwestern United States of America. 
 
 Subjects – A sample of 22,559 keyword searches leading to the institution’s digital repository between August 1, 2013, and July 31, 2014. 
 
 Methods – The author used Google Analytics to analyze 73,341 visits to the institution’s digital repository. He determined that 22,559 of these visits were due to keyword searches. Using Random Integer Generator, the author identified a random sample of 378 keyword searches. The author then matched the keywords with the Dublin Core and VRA Core metadata elements on the landing page in the digital repository to determine which metadata field had drawn the keyword searcher to that particular page. Many of these keywords matched to more than one metadata field, so the author also analyzed the metadata elements that generated unique keyword hits and those fields that were frequently matched together. 
 
 Main Results – Title was the most matched metadata field with 279 matched keywords from searches. Description and Subject were also significant fields with 208 and 79 matches respectively. Slightly more than half of the results, 195 keywords, matched the institutional repository in one field only. Both Title and Description had significant match rates both independently and in conjunction with other elements, but Subject keywords were the sole match in only three of the sampled cases. 
 
 Conclusion – The Dublin Core elements of Title, Description, and Subject were the most frequently matched fields in keyword searches. Academic librarians should focus on these elements when creating records in digital repositories to optimize traffic to their site from search engines.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.632
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207