MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240097251 · doi:10.31046/proceedings.2018.87

Managing a Large-Scale Weeding Project

2019· article· en· W4240097251 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leslie Engelson

Bibliographic record

VenueATLA Summary of Proceedings · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSession (web analytics)WorkflowQuarter (Canadian coin)Computer scienceProcess (computing)Raising (metalworking)State (computer science)Scale (ratio)Data collectionOperations researchProcess managementOperations managementEngineeringWorld Wide WebMathematicsDatabaseGeographyOperating systemMechanical engineeringProgramming languageStatisticsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main circulating collection at Murray State University had never been thoughtfully and intentionally weeded. Several factors aligned raising the need for a thorough weed of the collection resulting in weeding over a quarter of the collection (over 100,000 volumes). Most of the volumes were pulled and processed over a 32-week period. This session will discuss the circumstances that made the time ripe for weeding, the criteria that informed the decision-making process, tools used in that process, workflow for accomplishing the physical processing, cross-library participation in the project, and things to consider when implementing a project of this magnitude.

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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueATLA Summary of ProceedingsSame topicLibrary Collection Development and Digital ResourcesFrench-language works237,207