MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038084274 · doi:10.5860/crl.82.1.19

Communicating Collections Cancellations to Campus: A Qualitative Study

2021· article· en· W3038084274 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCollege & Research Libraries · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Canadian institutionsRoyal Saskatchewan MuseumUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Association of Research LibrariesUniversity of SaskatchewanAssociation of Research Libraries
KeywordsBacklashPublic relationsQualitative researchComputer scienceCatalogingWorld Wide WebBusinessSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Academic libraries around the world are cancelling big deal journal subscriptions at an increasing rate. This is primarily due to budgetary challenges, the unsustainable hyperinflationary pricing of these packages, and a need to move toward new open access models. It is a complex situation with many vested interests and stakeholders. Some libraries have been the target of angry backlash from faculty after such cancellations. The purpose of this qualitative study is to discover strategies for communicating to the campus community about collections cancellations so that they will better understand and support the library in making these difficult decisions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.279 · 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