Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines decolonization efforts at the Indigenous Authors Collection at the University of Calgary in Canada. The 47-book collection is an example of a decolonization attempt by the University, which aligns with the institution's Indigenous strategy. This project enhanced the Indigenous collection by adding Canadian authors and providing culturally appropriate metadata to increase visibility and access in the library’s catalogue. The authors discuss the problems they faced with current metadata standards not allowing the use of special characters, enhancements made, and the implications of cataloguing policies and workflow for other collections. The authors also demonstrate how users view and access their changes and show new ways that users can interact with the collection. They also explore future possibilities that linked data practices offer to display enhanced author information from local authorities and broaden the collection’s reach even further.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.022 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".