MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211510892 · doi:10.21226/ewjus626

The Ukrainian Kyrylytsia, Restored: An Automation Project for Adding the Cyrillic Fields to Ukrainian Records in OCLC WorldCat

2021· article· en· W3211510892 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueEast/West Journal of Ukrainian Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Science and Information Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUkrainianTransliterationRomanizationCatalogingComputer scienceSlavic languagesWorld Wide WebOrthographyPhilologyTable (database)Library scienceLinguisticsArtificial intelligencePolitical scienceDatabaseReading (process)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report from the field concerns a collaborative project which resulted in successfully adding the Cyrillic fields to about 30,000 Ukrainian bibliographic records in OCLC WorldCat, the world’s largest online catalogue. Historically, the Ukrainian records in English-speaking libraries were only provided in transliteration according to the Library of Congress Romanization Table. However, the current standards also require the original script, such as the Ukrainian Kyrylytsia. While automating the Cyrillicization of Ukrainian legacy records is theoretically straightforward, in practice it faced more than one challenge, from poor quality of transliteration to the historical changes in Ukrainian orthography. The report presents the OCLC Ukrainian Cyrillicization project and discusses the steps in its implementation as an example of a successful collaboration in the areas of bibliographic automation, Ukrainian philology and culture, Slavic cataloguing, and linguistics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.258 · 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