MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023365354 · doi:10.29173/jchla29451

Librarian’s Guide to Writing for Professional Publication

2020· article· en· W3023365354 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Andrea McLellan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l Association de bilbiothèques de la santé du Canada · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)Focus (optics)StructuringProfessional writingWork (physics)Quality (philosophy)Library scienceComputer scienceSociologyPolitical sciencePedagogyEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many books and articles have been written on the topic of ‘writing for librarians’. Some of these publications focus on improving the quality of writing , while others aim to support the librarian’s scholarly work, from the inception of an idea through to publication. Librarian’s Guide to Writing for Professional Publication provides an excellent foundation in writing, as well as guidance on using templates for structuring work-related documents and written communications.

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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l Association de bilbiothèques de la santé du CanadaSame topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyFrench-language works237,207