MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382518502 · doi:10.29085/9781783306305.007

Exchange Formats and Descriptive Standards: MARC and ISBD

2023· other· en· W4382518502 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Science and Information Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Library scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide WebHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As Michael Gorman stated on many occasions (Gorman, 2003), MARC and ISBD are two sides of the same coin: the first technological, the second bibliographic. MARC was designed in the early 1960s by the Library of Congress and ISBD was conceived in the late 1960s in the context of IFLA (Guerrini and Possemato, 2015). Let's look at each. 6.1 MARC, UNIMARC, MARC21 MARC is a machine-readable format for recording and exchanging bibliographic data. In the early 1960s, the Library of Congress decided to convert its card catalogues into electronic catalogues, introducing the possibility of disseminating data also in digital format. In 1964 a team coordinated by Henriette Avram was asked to create a draft of a machine-readable record. This initiative led to the MARC Pilot Project, which involved 16 libraries of various kinds that worked on the creation and distribution of digital bibliographic data and the evaluation of the possible uses of the data produced by the Library of Congress (Library of Congress, Information Systems Office, 1968). The experimentation resulted in a format, called MARC I, which contained, in a nutshell, some characteristics of the current one. The work proceeded in collaboration with the British Library and in 1968 the MARC II format was presented and used as a model for subsequent formats. In the 1970s MARC spread rapidly with the diffusion of automation in libraries. The USA tried to standardise the various formats by creating the USMARC Format for Bibliographic Data; however, several national and international variants emerged (e.g. INTERMARC in France and Belgium, later replaced by UNIMARC in France; CANMARC in Canada; UKMARC in England; ANNAMARC in Italy; RUSMARC in Russia). In 1999 MARC21 was published as a result of the collaboration between the Library of Congress, the British Library and the National Library of Canada to adopt a single format for the whole Anglo-American world. MARC21 is maintained by the Library of Congress. MARC is very significant, because it is still able to manage highly formalised data and is used by the majority of libraries around the world. In 1973 the general structure for transmitting MARC became the international standard ISO 2709. A record that conforms to ISO 2709 consists of three parts: 1 the first part is called the leader , which contains in encoded form general data for the processing of the record

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLibrary Science and Information SystemsFrench-language works237,207