Longevity of print book use at a small public university: a 30-year longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research uses the circulation history of print books in the University of Prince Edward Island’s (UPEI) collection to measure the longevity of usage using three different categories: Becher-Biglan (BB), major subject and academic department. Two sets of data provide for longitudinal analysis up to 30 years. About 10,000 books met the criteria for part 1, which had an average ten-year circulation longevity. About 14% had only one year of use and about 24% had less than five years’ longevity. There was little variation by BB, and the only major subjects that were noticeably different from the median were business and education, which were about 20% shorter. Part 2 included about 4,000 more recent books. 37% circulated for just one year and 64% circulated for at most a four-year range. There was very little variation in these results when broken down by BB, major subjects and academic departments. The one exception is business, which had a notably higher portion used only in one year. The circulation longevity of print books has significantly shortened over the last three decades at UPEI.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".