MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986782005 · doi:10.5703/1288284317064

Going It Alone: Why University Presses Are Creating Their Own E-Book Collections

2019· article· en· W2986782005 on OpenAlexaff
Charles Watkinson, Terry Ehling, Sharla Lair

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Canadian institutionsPurdue Pharma (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary scienceMedia studiesEngineeringComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most university presses deliver their e-books to libraries through aggregators. However, in 2019, two university presses, the MIT Press and University of Michigan Press, will launch their own e-book offerings for direct sale to institutions, and other presses are considering following suit. While there are a few university presses who have offered their own e-book products for a number of years, the intensity of discussion within the university press community about “going it alone” is new and deserves further interrogation. This paper summarizes why the MIT Press and University of Michigan Press are taking the bold step of launching their own e-book collections.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0120.011
Scholarly communication0.0360.034
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.015

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLibrary Collection Development and Digital ResourcesFrench-language works237,207