Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper will use research in cognitive science, particularly the mechanical modeling of semantic cognition, to suggest ways in which the model of the Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records (FRBR) can be mobilized in a fashion that is consistent with linked data, knowledge discovery and artificial intelligence. The shift from hierarchical models to those based on parallel distributed processing suggest new and innovative ways in which FRBR can enhance library catalogues in the future.Cet article utilise la recherche en sciences cognitives, en particulier la modélisation mécanique de la cognition sémantique, pour suggérer des façons de mobiliser le modèle des spécifications fonctionnelles des notices bibliographiques (FRBR) d'une manière compatible avec les données liées, la découverte des connaissances et intelligence artificielle. Le passage des modèles hiérarchiques à ceux basés sur le traitement distribué parallèle suggère des façons nouvelles et innovantes d'améliorer les catalogues de bibliothèques dans le futur.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".