Bibliographic record
Abstract
As those familiar with Choice know, we devote various issues throughout our volume year to particular themes. For many years the May theme has been ‘university press publishing,’ and over those many years the features that make up this thematic concentration have varied. Always included has been our annual press-by-press list of titles the individual presses themselves deem particularly valuable to undergraduates. Accordingly, following the forum, you will find ‘Significant University Press Titles for Undergraduates, 2007–2008,’ which this year includes entries from a record eighty-four presses. The other part of the university press feature has been narrative – in recent years a ‘forum’ in which directors of a handful presses offer their thoughts about their particular press or about university press publishing in general. The subtitle of this year's forum (which follows immediately) – ‘From the Prairie to the Pacific Rim’ – reflects the eclectic nature of the contributions: we make no effort to guide the contributors as to content, since we believe that a true pot luck best reflects what is on the tables (to wrest the most out of the food metaphor) of presses of various sizes and from various parts of North America. Every year we seek out new voices, and we hope eventually to hear from most, if not all, university presses in this forum. Among the new voices we sought out this year was Phil Pochoda's. Director of University of Michigan Press, Phil – like most university press directors – had been thinking a lot about matters digital. When he put his fingers to the keyboard – in response to our invitation – the result was a really meaty feature article that, we believe, deserves a broad audience. Accordingly, you will find herein Phil's piece, ‘The Future of Scholarly Communication: On the Other Side of the Digital Tipping Point.’ As always, we invite reader feedback on these features. E-mail us! Write to us! We welcome your thoughts on these matters or any others related to the work we do at Choice.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.161 | 0.057 |
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".