MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402842634 · doi:10.3998/ticker.6410

But I Need It!  Exploring a Magic Quadrant for Collections Needs, Wants and Contributions  

2024· article· en· W4402842634 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Corey Seeman

Bibliographic record

VenueTicker The Academic Business Librarianship Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntellectual Property Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Years and years of looking at Gartner Magic Quadrant charts has finally provided an inspiration for library adoption. The Gartner Magic Quadrant is a basic 2x2 matrix that serves as a decision support tool based on criteria along the X and Y axes. The Gartner model explores the "completeness of vision" with the "ability to execute" to rank the leading firms in any space into four major categories. In working with a vendor recently who showcased numerous faculty 'testimonials,' it dawned on me that we have a good use for a 2x2 matrix for library collections. We can use this to describe two factors, "the desire to have" and the "willingness to contribute." This is a core of the difficulty we have with sustainable budgeting for resources that might be critical, but there is no other funding available. It might be good as a way to explore priorities and encourage contributions from users for the resources we are being asked to fund.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTicker The Academic Business Librarianship ReviewSame topicIntellectual Property LawFrench-language works237,207