Measuring the Use of Networked Electronic Journals in an Academic Library Consortium: Moving beyond MINES for Libraries® in Ontario Scholars Portal
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academic library consortia, faced with requirements of assessment and accountability, are increasingly pressured to measure the impact of their networked electronic services. Studies on usage of electronic library resources and electronic journals, in particular, proliferate; relatively few focus on the academic library consortium. This paper gives an overview of one assessment tool, MINES for Libraries®, as implemented in the Scholars Portal service of the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL). The novel contributions of this study are twofold: firstly, the creation of peer groups within an academic consortium for comparison purposes, and secondly, the use of regression analysis to explore the correlation between usage and three separate variables outside the MINES survey — library print holdings, library acquisitions budget, and sponsored research revenue.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it