MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412705131 · doi:10.3998/nasig.7752

Maximizing Efficiency in Shared Print Programs: A DIY Approach to Overlap Analysis

2025· article· en· W4412705131 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marlene van Ballegooie

Bibliographic record

VenueNASIG Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Science and Information Systems
Canadian institutionsOntario Council of University LibrariesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the use of the KNIME Analytics Platform as a do-it-yourself solution for collection overlap analysis in shared print programs. Focusing on the Keep@Downsview partnership and the Canadian University Press Project, we demonstrate how KNIME significantly enhances the efficiency and accuracy of title matching and metadata processing in library operations. By outlining the methodologies used in these workflows, we highlight KNIME’s effectiveness in analyzing title overlaps in diverse library collections. This study reveals the transformative potential of KNIME in collaborative collection management, offering valuable insights into its effectiveness and practicality for streamlined overlap analysis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNASIG ProceedingsSame topicLibrary Science and Information SystemsFrench-language works237,207