Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Dublin sessions on 25 and 27 July 2011 were the first official meetings of the SubCommission after some informal meetings held in Moscow and some emails exchanged during the year. Most of the important documents concerning the extension of ISBD to unpublished resources were circulated before and during the Dublin conference. The Sub-Commission on ISBD and music met twice, Monday 25 July, attended by 21 people; and on Wednesday 27 July, attended by 16 people. In the first meeting, the chair presented the recent developments of the consolidation process of ISBD and the reasons for the possible extension of the standard to unpublished resources. In 2010, the IFLA Review Group (RG) established a Study Group with the task to draft a proposal; the work was based on a dissertation prepared by Marta Crippa for music manuscripts, and was focused mainly on manuscript resources. The results seem positive, in that in most cases the only changes needed in ISBD consist in avoiding the term publication, deleting the term printed and adding special paragraphs specifying the use of norms for unpublished resources, without contradicting the general principles. The main issues raised consist in new terms for area 0 (Content and media type), left to the decisions of the RG, in controversies in the use of area 4 ( Publication), involving also the possibility to use the area for manuscripts, and in the type of manuscripts where ISBD may be applied, and in the rejection of the initial proposals for areas 2 (Edition) and 6 (Series). A preliminary discussion in the Subcommission concluded the first session, and objections were raised concerning the use of area 8 (Resource identifier) for music incipits. The second session was focused on the structure of the Sub-commission; in order to improve its ability to work across the year, the chair proposed to have--like the SubCommission on UNIMARC--a vice-chair and a secretary, but also to have a larger group of stable members, possibly working in institutions who are active in the IFLA Cataloguing Section. All other IAML members are of course invited to participate actively or as observers and will be informed of the development of the work. The participants agreed, and Daniel Paradis (Bibliotheque et Archives nationales du Quebec, Montreal) kindly volunteered for the position of Vice-chair, while Mary Wedgewood (Library of Congress, Washington) graciously accepted that of Secretary. …
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.275 | 0.277 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".