MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Book Review: Databrarianship

2017· article· en· W2751394274 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Tomasz Mrozewski

Bibliographic record

VenuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnapshot (computer storage)Library scienceScope (computer science)Computer sciencePolitical scienceDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Databrarianship takes on the monumental task of trying to capture the vast, woolly scope of data librarianship in North America.It features 22 chapters from 37 contributors, hailing from nearly as many institutions-ranging from small, liberal arts colleges to the largest universities in Canada and large, state college systems in the US.In this sense, Databrarianship provides a comprehensive snapshot of what it means to be a data librarian circa 2016.The book is divided into four unequal sections: "Data Support Services for Researchers and Learners," "Data in the Disciplines," "Data Preservation and Access," and "Data: Past, Present, and Future."

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0240.576
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and ResearchSame topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207