MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006058034 · doi:10.1080/0361526x.2020.1715762

Out with the Old, In with the New: Revising ERM Workflows in a Time of Change

2020· article· en· W3006058034 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kailey Brisbin, Hana Storova, Todd Enoch

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Serials Librarian · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Science and Information Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowDocumentationMetadataTask (project management)Presentation (obstetrics)Computer scienceWorld Wide WebProcess managementKnowledge managementData scienceManagementEngineeringDatabaseMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The E-Resources and Metadata team of the University of Guelph Library have recently been motivated by multiple factors to undertake a massive review and revision of their workflows and accompanying documentation. This presentation explored their motivations for the task, as well as the principles and goals they used to guide their efforts. The presenters gave updates on the progress made so far and outlined future plans.

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)0.096
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.136
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0960.136
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0120.010
Scholarly communication0.0250.027
Open science0.0050.010
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.214
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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Serials LibrarianSame topicLibrary Science and Information SystemsFrench-language works237,207