Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary public libraries serve as a conduit between sources of \nknowledge and the public. They are not only a repository of knowledge \nbut also a community hub that facilitates, creates and disseminates this \ninformation. These libraries are democratic institutions that enable and \nadvocate for free access of information for everyone, where ‘information’ \ngoes beyond physical collections to include digital formats, live events \n(lectures and workshops) and learning through making. \nIn contemporary public libraries, the interaction between people \nand information is vital to their success, as a library without people is \nessentially a storage room. This thesis proposes the design of a new \npublic library for Sudbury that encourages discovery and elicits curiosity \nas a method of improving connections between people and knowledge \nstored in the library. Through the careful organization of the library’s \nprogram, the decentralized approach to stored knowledge, and the \nremoval of spatial barriers, the library’s architecture promotes browsing, \nwandering and ultimately discovering all the library has to offer
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".