What's in people's digital file collections?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Thoughtfully designing services and rigorously testing software to support personal information management (PIM) requires understanding the relevant collections, but relatively little is known about what people keep in their file collections, especially personal collections. Complementing recent work on the structure of 348 file collections, we examine those collections' contents, how much content is duplicated, and how collections used for personal matters differ from those used for study and work. Though all collections contain many images, some intuitively common file types are surprisingly scarce. Personal collections contain more audio than others, knowledge workers' collections contain more text documents but far fewer folders, and IT collections exhibit unusual traits. Collection duplication is correlated to collections' structural traits, but surprisingly, not to collection age. We discuss our findings in light of prior works and provide implications for various kinds of information research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it