MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790728709 · doi:10.29173/istl1705

Standards Collection Development and Management in an Academic Library: A Case Study at The University of Western Ontario Libraries.

2017· article· en· W2790728709 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Linda K. Dunn, Shiyi Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueIssues in Science and Technology Librarianship · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollection developmentPurchasingAcademic libraryLibrary scienceLibrary managementStock managementEngineering managementComputer scienceBusinessEngineeringMarketingGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How can academic libraries ensure their standards collections meet the teaching and research needs of science and engineering faculties? Nowadays, most academic libraries face financial constraints that greatly impact collection development. This article documents an academic library's experience with standards collections and the investigation and implementation of an on-demand purchasing model for a high-cost standards collection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0260.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIssues in Science and Technology LibrarianshipSame topicLibrary Collection Development and Digital ResourcesFrench-language works237,207