A Universal Digital Library Based on Unimpeded Access (and Some Proposals Based on Information Ethics)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Massive amounts of digital information, ready to be shared without any restrictions, could mean that what we are dealing with today is a universal collection of all knowledge that is freely available to everyone. However, information is consumed as a commodity and is, thus, locked up behind pay-walls set up by firms. But knowledge should not be privatized and information should be used as a tool to achieve goals of benevolence. This paper examines whether we have the technologies to move towards an ideal direction, where a Universal Digital Library would be introduced to ensure unimpeded access to the sum of all knowledge. It points out that there are both the necessary technologies and models to achieve this, albeit legal obstacles prevent people from accessing knowledge. This renders the scenario of the above imaginary library a utopia. So, more realistic approaches are discussed to support that current libraries, whether physical or digital, can very well perform their role as equalizers of access to knowledge. Finally, conclusions are drawn and optimistic scenarios are submitted to argue that law could someday make such universal-library-utopia come true.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".