Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital libraries are a powerful tool for preserving and disseminating information in a technology-driven world. Providing options for housing non-traditional information, such as three-dimensional (3D) data, digital libraries also address barriers (e.g., geographic location and physical space) that affect traditional libraries. While there are certainly still barriers that may prevent users from accessing and utilizing digital content, digital libraries offer ways of preserving, housing, and disseminating non-traditional information that physical libraries cannot. Within the anthropological community, digital libraries can serve as a method of housing 3D fossil data. There are unique challenges and barriers associated with studying fossils that digital libraries help to break down. Through the preservation and dissemination of 3D fossil data, researchers across the globe can work with fossil data without the concerns associated with handling fragile fossils. However, such 3D digital libraries are not without challenges. While there are clear standards and metadata schemas (e.g., RDA and DCMI) for digital libraries containing traditional materials, no such standardization exists for digital libraries containing 3D data. As such, metadata requirements and elements for existing 3D digital libraries are inconsistent and may lack important details about the data, which can compromise functionality. This paper explores trends and challenges that digital libraries containing 3D data experience and highlights best-practice solutions for future 3D digital libraries to overcome these challenges.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".