MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W637000585

AUTOMATED WORKSTATIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL CATALOGERS: A SURVEY OF ARL LIBRARIES

2015· article· en· W637000585 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Knowledge Bank (The Ohio State University) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Science and Information Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill UniversityUniversity of California, IrvineUniversity of MinnesotaUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Notre DameUniversity of OklahomaFlorida State UniversityU.S. National Library of MedicineWayne State UniversitySmithsonian LibrariesYork UniversityVanderbilt UniversitySmithsonian Institution
KeywordsWorkstationComputer scienceLibrary scienceOperating system
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A survey of ARL libraries was conducted in the spring of 1988 to determine how many libraries had, or soon would have, individual automated workstations for their professional catalogers. The number of libraries expecting to acquire these workstations at some future time was determined as well. The study also covered: (1) costs and types of equipment being used or considered for this purpose, (2) current and projected uses of automated workstations, and (3) their impact on cataloger productivity, processing costs, and the quality of catalog records.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.202 · 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