Begin at the Beginning: Revamping Collection Development Workflows
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Begin at the beginning,” the King said, very gravely, “and go on till you come to the end: then stop.” This paper describes how two librarians newer to the University of Tennessee Libraries refreshed collection development workflows at the Libraries after a reorganization. This reorganization distributed tasks across departments in a different manner due to the new departmental configurations. In this new matrix environment, more communication was required to achieve desired outcomes, but more buy-in was also needed from constituents such as the subject librarians. This paper describes how a new Collections Committee was formed to make decisions on high-dollar resources; what information was added to the traditional request form to facilitate the committee’s decisions; what information was asked of vendors at the point of trial or initial interest; and how this fed into a new collection development policy. By revamping the workflows to ask for more information up front, the presenters were able to help the new Collections Committee obtain all the information needed for decision-making at the point of decision. The authors share insights into how organizational changes can be used as an opportunity to instigate workflow changes that help libraries acquire resources more nimbly and flexibly.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it