История библиотечного дела сквозь призму отечественных диссертационных исследований: библиометрический анализ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the article is to present an overview of generation, formation and development of the history of domestic librarianship, since the late 1930s until 2018, basing on the study of materials of dissertations. In the course of analysis, the author revealed 1064 theses in the field of library science and related areas, 270 of which are devoted to the history of librarianship. The article shows that dissertations research on the history of librarianship in the initial period from 1930 to 1950 occupied up to the half of all library dissertation theses; about a third of them were created in the period from 1951 to 1970 and a quarter — since 1971 to the present. This indicates that interest to the history of librarianship is stable. The article reflects the peak of historical research that fell on the period from 2001 to 2010. The author suggests that 25% indicator level of historical studies of the total number of research works on library science is a necessary and sufficient level to ensure the development of library science in general. The article notes multidisciplinary nature of dissertations research: 60% of studies defended in pedagogical sciences, 37% — in historical sciences and slightly more than 3% — in other branches of science. The article reveals the gradual increase in the number of prepared and defended dissertation theses in historical sciences, which contributes to the expansion of research space in the history of library construction. The author carried out periodization of dissertations research. It is shown that the main attention was paid to the research studies on the history of Soviet period in library construction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
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".