MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2741387061 · doi:10.5555/3200334.3200394

Preservation planning and workflows for digital holdings at the Thomas Fisher rare book library

2017· article· en· W2741387061 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Council of University Libraries
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowInternshipDigital libraryComputer scienceWorld Wide WebWork (physics)Library scienceBaseline (sea)Digital preservationEngineeringMedical educationDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this practice-based work is to share experiences and findings with other digital preservation practitioners. The Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library Digital Preservation Pilot is a collaborative project involving the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, Information Technology Services at University of Toronto Libraries, and the TALint internship program at the school's Faculty of Information. Guidance was also provided by the Digital Curation Institute at the University of Toronto. The purpose of the project was to evaluate the extent of born-digital content at risk in the Fisher's collections, develop a workflow for accessioning, and establish a baseline level of preservation on the content. The following is an overview of that process, results, challenges, and recommendations for next steps.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0180.018
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.123 · 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