MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6948411362 · doi:10.5061/dryad.d2547d802

Research Data Services in Academic Libraries: A Survey of North American Academic Libraries in 2019

2020· dataset· en· W6948411362 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueOpen MIND · 2020
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGraph Theory and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStaffingAcademic libraryResearch dataCenter (category theory)Information systemInformation centerSurvey data collection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To determine the extent to which research data services (RDS) are supported in academic libraries and how that has changed over a decade, in 2019 a research team led by Carol Tenopir at the University of Tennessee Center for Information and Communication Studies, in collaboration with ACRL-Choice, surveyed academic library directors in the United States and Canada. This survey allowed us to compare results with a similar survey conducted in 2012. The goal of both studies was to discover the types of data services offered, the staffing deployed or anticipated for such services, the training necessary to support RDS, and RDS plans for the future. The associated white paper can be accessed at http://www.choice360.org/librarianship/whitepaper and downloaded at https://www.research.net/r/CHOICERDSWP

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0290.021
Research integrity0.0000.004
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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.221 · 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