Bibliographic record
Abstract
AFRICANIST LIBRARIANSHIP IN AN ERA OF CHANGE. Evalds, Vicki, and David Henige (Eds.). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow, 2005, 242 pp., $35.00, ISBN 0-8108-5201-2. Reviewed by Robin Kear. BEST TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES IN HIGHER EDUCATION. Lloyd, Les (Ed.). Medford, NJ: Information Today, 2005, xxi+ 242 pp., $39.50, ISBN 1-57387-208-3. Reviewed by Brad Eden DESIGN AND USABILITY OF DIGITAL LIBRARIES: CASE STUDIES IN THE ASIA PACIFIC. Theng, Yin-Leng, and Schubert Foo (Eds.). Hershey, PA: Idea Group, 2005, xiv+ 395 pp., $69.95, ISBN 1-59140-442-8. Reviewed by Sherri Vokey. GUIDE TO LICENSING AND ACQUIRING ELECTRONIC INFORMATION. (ALCTS ACQUISITIONS GUIDES; 13). Bosch, Stephen, Patricia A. Promis, and Chris Sugnet, with contributions by Trisha Davis. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow, 2005, v+112 pp., $40.00, ISBN 0-8108-5259-4. Reviewed by Brad Eden. LAST ONE OUT TURN OFF THE LIGHTS: IS THIS THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN AND CANADIAN LIBRARIES? Cleyle, Susan E., and Louise M. McGillis (Eds.). Toronto: Scarecrow, 2005, xix+ 227 pp., $54.00, ISBN 081085192X. Reviewed by James Watson. THE SKEPTICAL BUSINESS SEARCHER: THE INFORMATION ADVISOR'S GUIDE TO EVALUATING WEB DATA, SITES, AND SOURCES. Beckman, Robert. Medford, NJ: Information Today, 2004, 281 pp., $29.95, ISBN 0-9109-6566-8. Reviewed by Laura L. Moody. TECHNOLOGY PLANNING. Matthews, Joseph R. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2004, xvi+ 139 pp., $45.00, ISBN 1-59158-190-7. Reviewed by Beatrice R. Pulliam.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.672 | 0.612 |
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".