MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Beyond Typical Library Partnerships: Intersecting with the City

2016· article· fr· W2566073321 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Cindy Derrenbacker

Bibliographic record

VenuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntownPresentation (obstetrics)Library scienceArchitectureTheme (computing)HumanitiesSociologyHistoryArtVisual artsArchaeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay is adapted from a lightning-talk presentation given at the annual conference of The Workshop for Instruction in Library Use (WILU), held at the University of British Columbia, May 30-June 1, 2016. The conference theme was Intersections. The presentation and essay highlight the emerging library partnerships between Laurentian University's McEwen School of Architecture Library and various groups in downtown Sudbury, Ontario that are leading to expanded services and positive community engagement. Cet essai est une adaptation d’une présentation « éclair » offerte lors du congrès de l’Atelier annuel sur la formation documentaire, plus communément connu sous son acronyme anglophone WILU (Workshop for Instruction in Library Use), qui a eu lieu à l’Université de la Colombie-Britannique du 30 mai au 1er juin 2016. Le thème du congrès était « Intersections ». La présentation et cet essai portent sur des partenariats en émergence entre la bibliothèque de l’École d’architecture McEwen de l’Université Laurentienne et divers groupes situés au centre-ville de Sudbury, Ontario qui mènent vers une prestation élargie des services et un engagement communautaire positif.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0480.047
Scholarly communication0.0440.025
Open science0.0030.033
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and ResearchSame topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207