MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999563369 · doi:10.5860/lrts.64n1.26

Holistic Collection Development and the Smithsonian Libraries

2020· article· en· W2999563369 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary Resources and Technical Services · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSmithsonian Center for Folklife and Cultural HeritageSmithsonian LibrariesUniversity of OxfordSmithsonian Institution
KeywordsUnit (ring theory)Collection developmentComputer scienceCatalogingLibrary scienceData collectionWorld Wide WebSociologyPsychologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of a larger collections analysis study, this project outlines why a particular, underserved museum unit at the Smithsonian Institution is underutilizing the Smithsonian Libraries’ facilities and resources, and how the library can better support this unit’s unique research needs. Using a holistic methodology that weds quantitative and qualitative approaches, this study highlights the unit’s distinct research profile that includes the various logistical, emotional, and collection-related barriers that impede their usage of the Libraries. Findings from this study signal the utility of a holistic, user-centric methodology to gather pertinent data and facilitate ongoing, interpersonal dialogues between the Smithsonian Libraries and its diverse internal users.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.161 · 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