MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Library Big Data Research

2017· book-chapter· en· W4238552045 on OpenAlexaff
Shaochun Xu, Wencai Du, Chunning Wang, Dapeng Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsAlgoma University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBig dataData scienceComputer scienceField (mathematics)ConfusionWorld Wide WebService (business)Digital libraryFace (sociological concept)AnalyticsGovernment (linguistics)Work (physics)EngineeringBusinessData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Libraries are widely used by government, universities, research institutes, and the public since they are storing and managing intellectual assets. The library information directly stored in libraries and about the people interaction with libraries can be transformed into accessible data which then will be used by researchers to help library better serve users. Librarians need to understand how to transform, analyze, and present data in order to facilitate such knowledge creation. For example, the challenges they face include how to make big datasets more useful, visible and accessible. Fortunately, with new and powerful analytics of big data, such as information visualization tools, researchers/users can look at data in new ways and mine it for information they intend to have. Moreover, interaction of users and stored information has been taken into librarian's consideration to improve library service quality. In this work, the authors discuss the characteristics of datasets in library and argue against a popular confusion that data involved in library research is not big enough, conduct a review for the research work on library big data and then summarize the applications and research directions in this field. The status of big data research in library in China is discussed. The challenges associated with it are also discussed and explored.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.022
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0160.023
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.008

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 head0.399
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.019 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Metaresearch

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainReproducibility
GenreEmpirical · Other

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicResearch Data Management PracticesCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207