MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940503707 · doi:10.1080/01639374.2019.1597005

Wikipedia Knows the Value of What the Library Catalog Forgets

2019· article· en· W2940503707 on OpenAlexaff
Kris Joseph

Bibliographic record

VenueCataloging & Classification Quarterly · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital Humanities and Scholarship
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelevance (law)CatalogingConstruct (python library)Computer scienceFunction (biology)Value (mathematics)Information retrievalDigital libraryWorld Wide WebSubject (documents)Library catalogLibrary sciencePhilosophyPolitical scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shifting library catalogs from physical to digital has come at a cost. Catalog records no longer leave traces of their own evolution, which is a loss for librarianship. The subjective nature of information classification warrants self-examination, within which we may see the evolution of practice, debates over attribution and relevance, and how culture is reflected in the systems used to describe it. Wikipedia models what is possible: revision histories and discussion pages function as knowledge generators. A list of unanswerable questions for the modern catalog urges us to construct a new, forward-thinking bibliography that allows us to look backward.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.016
Scholarly communication0.0200.054
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCataloging & Classification QuarterlySame topicDigital Humanities and ScholarshipFrench-language works237,207