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
Almost a year ago, in the summer of 2023, the managing editors of the Emerging Library and Information Perspectives (ELIP) journal called upon LIS graduate students and recent alumni to submit their papers for the sixth edition of the journal. This marked the beginning of a significant transformation for ELIP, transitioning it from a structured process managed by a hired editor and faculty advisory board to a fully student-run, volunteer-driven journal. The relaunch involved revamping the editorial process, expanding the author pool, and enhancing outreach efforts, all aimed at creating a more inclusive and independent platform. The new issue exemplifies these changes, featuring diverse contributions across multiple categories, from research articles on TikTok's algorithms and information science ontologies to insightful discussions on podcasts and Wikipedia for information literacy. The managing editors, reflecting on the journey, now pass the baton to future editors, eager to see the continued growth and impact of ELIP within the LIS community.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.052 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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