MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410924532 · doi:10.29173/istl2883

Science Libraries Today: An Update on ARL Institutions

2025· article· en· W4410924532 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chris Doty, Kristan Majors

Bibliographic record

VenueIssues in Science and Technology Librarianship · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary scienceWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of our study is to update the data on the state of science libraries at Association of Research Libraries (ARL) institutions and compare our data to previous studies. In 2023, 67% of the 120 ARL libraries had a science library. 152 science libraries remain open at ARL member institutions in Canada and the United States. Our findings show libraries are continuing to consolidate into multidisciplinary science libraries. Along with providing the highlights from our study, we also provide an updated dataset in Dataverse for other libraries to use in their own benchmarking studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0590.155
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0150.021
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.032

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIssues in Science and Technology LibrarianshipSame topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207