MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253204910 · doi:10.3138/jsp.40.4.370

Library Publishing as a New Model of Scholarly Communication

2009· article· en· W4253204910 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jingfeng Xia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb and Library Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingDiversification (marketing strategy)Subject (documents)Library scienceScholarly communicationAcademic libraryPolitical scienceBusinessComputer scienceMarketingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article briefly compares the history, current practices, and trends of library publishing and institutional repositories, but focuses on journal publishing by academic libraries. By introducing some foreign university publishing models, it recommends an institutional concentration, rather than a subject orientation, of library journals and suggests a diversification of the library publishing.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0060.018
Scholarly communication0.0390.037
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations24
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scholarly PublishingSame topicWeb and Library ServicesFrench-language works237,207