MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766480644 · doi:10.5703/1288284316424

Where Is the Library Budget Going? Using ILS Fund Codes and Reports for Fiscal Accountability

2017· article· en· W2766480644 on OpenAlexaff
Debbi Smith

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLocal Government Finance and Decentralization
Canadian institutionsPurdue Pharma (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityFunction (biology)Code (set theory)Computer scienceResource (disambiguation)Fiscal yearFund accountingFinanceWorld Wide WebAccountingBusinessPolitical scienceAccounting information systemProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our collections continue to migrate to an online environment, but often administrators outside the library are tied to fiscal concepts that do not reflect new formats and modes of access. Administrators look at electronic resource expenditures and don’t always understand that they are not just for databases but also for e-journals and e-books that can be subscribed to or owned. Fund code structures that are built into instrument landing systems (ILS) such as Innovative’s Sierra can be used to demonstrate how material budgets are expended by format and function, which can then be tied into more formal assessment and analysis of resources.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.666
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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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 topicLocal Government Finance and DecentralizationFrench-language works237,207