Bibliographic record
Abstract
Naxos Music Library (Internet music resource). Naxos Digital Services Ltd. http://www.naxosmusiclibrary.com. [Requires: For PC users: Microsoft Windows 98, 2000, or XP with Internet Explorer 6.0, Mozilla 1.7.1, FireFox 1.0, Netscape 7.1, or Opera 7.53 and Media Player 9.0/10.0; for Macintosh users: OS 8.6 or 9.0 with Internet Explorer 5.1 and Media Player 7.1; or OS X 10.2.8 or 10.3.5 with Internet Explorer 5.2, Mozilla 1.7, Netscape 7.1, Opera 7.53, or Safari 1.0 and Media Player 9.0. Pricing: from $750 per year for 5 simultaneous users, incrementing in steps of 5 additional users to $2,500 per year for 25 simultaneous users, thereafter priced at $50 for each additional user. Willing to discuss other pricing models with large institutions and consortia.] Since the publication of the joint review of the Naxos Music Library by Ned Quist, Darwin F. Scott, and Alec McLane in Notes (vol. 61, no. 2 [December 2004]: 512-16), Naxos Digital Services has made several changes to its product. In addition, numerous colleges, universities, and library consortia took the Naxos Music Library through its first intense paces at an academic level during the fall semester of 2004. Unfortunately the results were less than stellar. This follow-up review summarizes and critiques some of these new features, various enhancements to the product (frequently in response to suggestions from the library community), and Naxos's performance during a demanding period of collegiate use. All comments in this review are based on three sources of first-hand information: the experiences of participating libraries in the Boston Library Consortium (BLC) following a consortial subscription for one hundred simultaneous users that commenced in August 2004; communications posted on the Music Library Association (MLA) electronic mail list MLA-L during the fall of 2004 and spring of 2005; and the state of the Naxos Music Library Web site at http://www.naxosmusiclibrary.com/ (via BLC subscription access through Brandeis University) during the same period. Readers should bear in mind that the frequent changes and updates Naxos made to this service during its first year of marketing to libraries inevitably make a review such as this slightly out date, and it is likely that Naxos will have addressed many of the issues cited here by the time this critique appears in print. Indeed, this is already the case. Responding to the joint review presentation of the Naxos Music Library by Scott and McLane at the 2005 annual meeting of the Music Library Association in Vancouver, B.C. (see below), Klaus Heymann, managing director of HNH International (the parent company of Naxos Digital Services Ltd.), has already implemented some of the suggested enhancements for the product (see Scott's responses to Heymann's comments on the criticism posted on MLA-L, 19 April 2005). The fall semester of 2004 was indeed a testing ground for the Naxos Music Library. Impressed with the depth and diversity of the Naxos content and what appeared to be an efficient means for providing streaming audio for library reserves--as well as an exciting aural counterpart to electronic text resources such as JSTOR or Grove Music Online--numerous libraries set up subscriptions during the summer, perhaps naively expecting all to go without a hitch when the students returned and instructors began to add Naxos links to their course management pages. It quickly became apparent that the product was not quite ready for academic prime time, as connections failed, access fizzled midstream, browsers malfunctioned, patrons got shut out, and any number of other frustrations surfaced. The faculty and students came to Naxos with high expectations--but the bevy of difficulties that rapidly surfaced at many institutions dissipated much of the initial enthusiasm for the product. In all fairness, however, without a lengthy beta-test phase, Naxos could not have possibly anticipated the myriad of problems inevitable in an electronic environment with wildly divergent, sometimes incompatible, and frequently outdated equipment, software, Internet connections, proxy servers, and other components of the campus computing infrastructure. …
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.757 | 0.657 |
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".