MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252674445 · doi:10.2307/j.ctt6wq4p0.23

Running a Contest to Encourage Timely Monograph Ordering

2013· book-chapter· en· W4252674445 on OpenAlexaff
Carol J. Cramer

Bibliographic record

VenuePurdue University Press eBooks · 2013
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsPurdue Pharma (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCONTESTOperations researchComputer sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An age-old problem: Whatever deadline you set for placing monograph orders, you receive a big burst of orders at the last minute. Acquisitions staff beg for book orders one month and get flooded with orders the next. Librarians at Wake Forest University tried to mitigate this problem by running a contest: spend 65% of your target by an early deadline, and your fund wins a share of a cash prize. The presenter will discuss how the contest idea proved an effective incentive for selectors and how it served to make acquisitions work more steadily.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.021

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.165 · 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.

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePurdue University Press eBooksSame topicModel-Driven Software Engineering TechniquesFrench-language works237,207