MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2538655673 · doi:10.5703/1288284316268

Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe: E‐Books Changed Our Workflow

2016· article· en· W2538655673 on OpenAlexaff
Denise Novak, Terr Hurlbert

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Canadian institutionsPurdue Pharma (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowCatalogingWorld Wide WebPresentation (obstetrics)PopularityComputer scienceWorkflow engineProcess (computing)Library scienceDatabasePolitical scienceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the popularity and sheer number of e‐books increased, it became evident that our existing process or workflow for acquiring and cataloging them would need some modification. This presentation will explain how the Carnegie Mellon University Libraries Technical Services implemented changes in workflow for ordering and cataloging e‐books. Including the topics of technology, user expectations, and getting reference librarians on board, we’ll cover the why of e‐books, what has gone well, and where we go from here.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.004
Scholarly communication0.0150.018
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.010

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 Collection Development and Digital ResourcesFrench-language works237,207