MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895644304 · doi:10.5860/crln.79.9.506

Weeding a shared e-book collection: Collaboration across a consortium

2018· article· en· W2895644304 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCollege & Research Libraries News · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollection developmentFunction (biology)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)Process (computing)World Wide WebShared resourceLibrary scienceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collection weeding is an important function of any library operation. At its simplest, the process of deciding what to remove, and implementing it, is controlled by a library or system serving a single mission and set of objectives. This becomes more complicated when the collection is shared by a group of libraries, such as those within a consortium, that have separate governing structures. The difficulty of such an undertaking is further compounded for collections of electronic resources with varying licensing terms and technical configurations. This paper describes just such a weeding project of an e-book collection shared by members of a large library consortium.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.013
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.272 · 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