MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232098727 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14647431

Assessing digital strategies and tools for legacy publishers: What works? What fails? And What's next?

2021· preprint· en· W4232098727 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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDominance (genetics)Legacy systemFace (sociological concept)Context (archaeology)Digital libraryTransition (genetics)World Wide WebComputer scienceLibrary sciencePolitical scienceMedia studiesSociologySocial scienceHistorySoftwareArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper will first outline the importance of transitioning to the digital era for legacy publishers, defined here as publishers that existed before the rise of the Information Age and the current dominance of digital technologies in the 21st century. Particular focus is paid to academic publishers, catalogues, and journals rather than publishers in education and trade. The parameters of digital transition, the choices a legacy publisher may face, and the problems that challenge legacy publishers are discussed and put into context in regards to a legacy publisher’s role in the digital age. Finally, an examination of different tools used in digital native companies is performed and their usefulness for legacy publishers are analyzed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.9930.983
Open science0.0010.003
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.209 · 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