VAMOS FALAR DE NOVA BIBLIOTECONOMIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A conferencia de abertura do XXVI Congresso Brasileiro de Biblioteconomia e Documentacao nos fez o seguinte convite: “Vamos pensar juntos uma nova Biblioteconomia?”. No mesmo ano, acompanhando algumas das postagens do grupo fechado da rede social Facebook intitulado Bibliotecarios do Brasil, a seguinte chamou atencao: tratava-se do compartilhamento da noticia de que em Praga esta localizada a livraria “mais bonita do mundo”. O participante do grupo que divulgou, colocou no enunciado no Brasil faltam livrarias, bibliotecas e gente interessada em ler. Cenario a Nova Biblioteconomia resolver. Em outras postagens semelhantes, destaca-se a mesma frase para a Nova Biblioteconomia resolver”. Afinal, o que e a nova Biblioteconomia? E por meio dela que resolveremos tais questoes no contexto brasileiro? O presente trabalho apresenta uma discussao inicial sobre alguns aspectos que serao contemplados ao longo da tese de doutorado em Ciencia da Informacao que pretende abordar a “nova Biblioteconomia” no contexto brasileiro.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.009 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".