MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905711227 · doi:10.23974/ijol.2018.vol3.2.94

Shared Next Generation ILSs and Academic Library Consortia: Trends, Opportunities and Challenges

2018· article· en· W2905711227 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

VenueInternational Journal of Librarianship · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipAcademic libraryEarly adopterBusinessInterlibrary loanFirst generationLibrary sciencePolitical scienceComputer scienceSociologyMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Next generation Integrated Library Systems (ILSs) have been maturing and adopted by more and more academic libraries. Many academic libraries have joined a consortium to collaboratively move towards a shared next generation ILS that sustains a deeper collaboration. Has this been a trend for academic libraries to share the new system in consortia? This article examines the adoption of the leading products in next generation ILSs to reveal the trend. Two case studies are conducted on A) a pioneer consortial adopter and B) a newly formed partnership on shared next generation ILSs, for further investigations on the impact on consortial members, the challenges the new shared system may cause, and the opportunities it brings to academic library consortia and their members.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.662
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
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.012
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.253
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.030 · 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