MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W319001012 · doi:10.29173/istl2503

E-Books in the Sciences: If We Buy It Will They Use It?

2009· article· en· W319001012 on OpenAlexaff
Rajiv Nariani

Bibliographic record

VenueIssues in Science and Technology Librarianship · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraduate studentsLibrary scienceElectronic bookSociologyPsychologyMedical educationPedagogyComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article discusses research on the use of science online electronic books (e-books) among faculty members and graduate students. The study surveyed 58 graduate students, 26 masteral students and faculty on e-book awareness with a list of e-book publishers provided and the second part on the preferred features in an e-book platform. Results indicated that 76% of students have used e-books while 50 % of the faculty have awareness and 46% have no awareness about e-books in the library.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.012
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.230 · 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.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations29
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIssues in Science and Technology LibrarianshipSame topicLibrary Collection Development and Digital ResourcesFrench-language works237,207