MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417364491 · doi:10.5860/ital.v44i4.17404

Measuring the Impact of Digital Collections

2025· article· en· W4417364491 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation Technology and Libraries · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReuseDigital libraryDigital collectionsMetadataDigital contentObject (grammar)Focus (optics)Digital preservation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessing content use and reuse is a considerable challenge for gallery, library, archives, museum, and repository (GLAMR) digital library practitioners. While a number of digital object content use studies focus on quantitative approaches to assessment, including digital object downloads, views, and visits, little research has investigated the ways in which digital repository materials are utilized and repurposed. The Digital Content Reuse Assessment Framework Toolkit, or D-CRAFT, addresses some of these gaps by providing assessment methods, ethical considerations and guidelines, tutorials, and "how to" templates to assist practitioners in understanding how digital objects are used and reused by various audiences. The toolkit enhances and advances the typical digital library use assessment approaches. As such, this paper argues that D-CRAFT can play a critical role in assisting GLAMR digital library practitioners in reuse assessment data collection.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.173 · 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