MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Evolving Business Library: Introduction

2020· article· en· W3080860111 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Meg Trauner

Bibliographic record

VenueTicker The Academic Business Librarianship Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement, Economics, and Public Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When "The Evolving Business Library" was selected as the theme for the 2019 Academic Business Library Directors' annual conference at Harvard Business School, no one was thinking of Charles Darwin.In nature, evolution is a slow process involving millions of minor changes that result in large effects on species over eons of time.In libraries, the changes are significant, and the rate of change is rapid--or at least they are experienced that way by librarians.Librarians find themselves stretching to adapt to their new environments and to help their users adapt too.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0120.011
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.020

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.186 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTicker The Academic Business Librarianship ReviewSame topicManagement, Economics, and Public PolicyFrench-language works237,207