MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2765613774

Away from the Library

2017· article· en· W2765613774 on OpenAlexaff
David Michels

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssertionLibrary scienceLaw libraryWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceComputer scienceSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"I use Google for my research, I don't use the library." "Can you teach my students to do legal research only with tools they can access after they leave University?" This paper is about me, the librarian, irritated by the assertion and puzzled by the request. It captures just two of many events on a long and incomplete journey of reimagining librarianship and my changing role as librarian. I would test the assertion, plan the classes, and share those experiences. However, I would be dishonest if I did not also share that I am apprehensive about the results of my tests. What might it mean for me if my clients could be just fine without the library?

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.012
Scholarly communication0.0200.022
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0050.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1200.072

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicLegal Education and Practice Innovations→French-language works237,207→