Bibliographic record
Abstract
CoLIS is a triennial series of international conferences for the exploration and exchange of ideas in the field of Library and Information Science and its related disciplines.The final CoLIS 10 Programme and Book of Abstracts is available online (Merčun & Vilar, 2019), and selected full papers will appear in a special issue of Information Research in late 2019.The capital city of Ljubljana, with its stunning architecture, charming cafélined canal, and delightful spring weather was an ideal location for CoLIS 10; 115 delegates from 19 countries attended.Keynote addresses occurred each morning of the conference and engaged the audience in the simmering frontiers of Library and Information Science.On the first day, Sarah T. Roberts, of the University of California, Los Angeles, presented Behind the screen: the internet's invisible information workers (Merčun & Vilar, 2019, p. 13).She reported on the phenomenon of content moderation in social media firms and its hidden, global, human toll.On the second day of CoLIS, Sabina Leonelli, from the University of Exeter delivered New frontiers in data curation: A view from scientific practice (p.14).In the context of Open Science, Leonelli described the enormous logistical, scientific and ethical challenges that exist in making Big Data accessible -and called for information professionals to be mediators of the process.As the third and final keynote, Ross J. Todd, of Rutgers University shared Safe information lives: Conceptions and practices (p.15).Drawing from his 48-year career in education and library science, Todd reflected upon the cluttered theoretical landscape associated with digital literacy and young people; introduced the concept of digital well-being; and pointed to potential future research methods for understanding youth's experience online.The 54 papers at CoLIS 10 were wide-ranging and stimulating.Scholars targeted the perennial questions of Library and Information Science while also introducing novel views.My own contribution, Turn, turn, turn (Merčun & Vilar, 2019, p. 17), surveyed seven theoretical movements that have swept through our field in the past half-century and included a sing-along.Other delegates tackled chestnuts such as information need (p.34); examined the usefulness (p.33) of information; probed the
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".