MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379160089 · doi:10.30958/ajs.10-2-2

Artificial Intelligence Utilization in Libraries

2023· article· en· W4379160089 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAthens Journal of Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology in Education and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalYork UniversityUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTuringComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMusic and artificial intelligenceApplications of artificial intelligenceMarketing and artificial intelligencePoint (geometry)Artificial intelligence, situated approachFocus (optics)Turing testSubject (documents)Digital transformationData scienceCognitive scienceWorld Wide WebIntelligent decision support systemPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence is becoming more and more crucial each passing day. This study initially will present artificial intelligence utilization in libraries. In 1950, Alan Turing came up with the idea that computers might be able to imitate human behavior. According to Turing, artificial intelligence could analyze texts, make modelling the knowledge to help decision-making, reproduce a standard reasoning and use this information to make decisions and to produce knowledge thanks to machine learning. In this research, a literature review is conducted concerning different aspects of the subject. This study will lead to better focus on different scientific point of view about the artificial intelligence. Keywords: artificial intelligence, libraries, technology, digital transformation, smart libraries

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.284
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.222 · 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