MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2536154022 · doi:10.5703/1288284316300

Vendorbrarians: Librarians Who Work for Vendors and the Value They Provide to Library Customers

2016· article· en· W2536154022 on OpenAlexaff
Charlie Remy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsPurdue Pharma (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVendorSession (web analytics)Work (physics)Value (mathematics)Set (abstract data type)Computer scienceWorld Wide WebBusinessKnowledge managementLibrary sciencePublic relationsMarketingEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A panel of librarians working for different kinds of library vendors discussed their unique and valuable roles inside their organizations. The session was moderated by an Electronic Resources Librarian with an interest in library/vendor relationships. Librarians can add value to their company’s relationships with library customers as they share the same basic skill set as their colleagues in libraries and have a better understanding of their needs, industry standards, and the day to day realities of their customers. Topics discussed included the kinds of roles librarians can have at vendors, how these positions compare and contrast with more traditional library work, their identities in the library profession, how library school did and did not prepare them for their jobs, and more.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.017
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.237 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyFrench-language works237,207