MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238129400 · doi:10.1629/uksg.258

The Academic Book of the Future

2015· article· en· W4238129400 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marilyn Deegan, Samantha J. Rayner

Bibliographic record

VenueInsights the UKSG journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital Humanities and Scholarship
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity College LondonArts and Humanities Research CouncilKing's College London
KeywordsLibrary scienceThe artsDiversity (politics)Variety (cybernetics)Political scienceWork (physics)Media studiesSociologyHistoryManagementEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Academic Book of the Future is a research project funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) in collaboration with The British Library (BL) and is concerned with how scholarly work in the arts and humanities will be produced, read and preserved in coming years. The project is run by a team from University College London (UCL) and King’s College London (King’s), with support from the Research Information Network (RIN). The project has built a Community Coalition of more than 100 organizations and individuals. The project and the Coalition are holding a whole range of events and carrying out research projects on a variety of relevant topics. The key event for 2015 is Academic Book Week, 9-16 November 2015, which has been taken up enthusiastically by the Publishers Association (PA) and the Booksellers Association (BA), as well as the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP), and was launched in July 2015 with a large announcement in The Bookseller. Events celebrating the diversity, innovation and influence of academic books will be held across the UK, with participation from institutions elsewhere in Europe and also in the USA, Canada, Japan and Australia.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsights the UKSG journalSame topicDigital Humanities and ScholarshipFrench-language works237,207