MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947364076 · doi:10.5206/elip.v2i1.5928

The Constraints of Software

2019· article· en· W2947364076 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerging Library & Information Perspectives · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHistory of Computing Technologies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPremiseSoftwareContext (archaeology)Computer scienceWorld Wide WebComputer softwareSoftware engineeringHistoryEpistemologyOperating systemPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computer software media has long had intrinsic similarities to books...so why may one be borrowed in a library and not the other? The answer lies in the context and history of how computer media came to be. In this essay I explore the early history of software distribution, where many different proposals fought to succeed. I provide an overview of the software industry’s early embrace of copy-protected floppy disks as a distribution medium, and how they harmed the notion of software as a borrowable medium. Lastly, I cover how CD-ROM materials were treated as books by publishers and libraries, yet failed to realize this premise with long-term success. I argue that a combination of industry actions and technological constraints over four decades caused computer software to fail to succeed as a tangible medium that can be borrowed like a book, lent, or resold at will.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.186 · 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