The Institutional Alignment Challenge: Grappling with AI in Collections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rise of publicly available generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools, librarians have been working to understand their impact on library-licensed e-resources while ensuring users receive accurate, timely guidance on privacy, intellectual property and other usage considerations. In response to this challenge, the University of Toronto Libraries (UTL) formed its Collections AI Response Team, to bring together expertise across collections and scholarly communications units and to strategize on how to best mitigate the risks posed by these tools to our institution, its members and the environment, while avoiding the potential stifling of innovative uses of these technologies by our community. So far, the Team’s efforts have focused on three areas: Collaboration and alignment with institution-wide working groups developing UofT’s response to GenAI ; Outreach to instructors and researchers via workshops and consultations, with a focus on licensing and IP ownership; the creation of our GenAI Tool Navigator, to gather and proliferate information about GenAI tools as they become available to users. As our institution’s approach to the ethical and practical implications of GenAI tools continue to evolve and reflect the diversity of approaches to GenAI within it, our Team has had to anticipate what the role of Collections should be in this conversation. The presentation will share our insights from this work so far, including the increased saliency of issues of privacy and openness in this work, as well as share our plans for future initiatives in this area.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".