Mapping the World of Library Publishing: Unveiling the Global Landscape and Collaboration behind the Scenes
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is derived from the presentation titled “Mapping the World of Library Publishing: Revealing the Global Landscape and Collaborative Efforts” delivered during the panel discussion “Working Together to Expand Library Publishing Globally” at the World Library and Information Congress (WLIC) 88th IFLA General Conference and Assembly on August 22, 2023, held in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. It provides insights into the background and collaborative dynamics among key stakeholders, including the IFLA Library Publishing Special Interest Group, the Library Publishing Coalition, and various international entities working behind the scenes of the Global Library Publishing Map project. The article delves into the project’s development, presenting a comprehensive analysis of all participating libraries and other organizations to unveil the global library publishing landscape as visualized on the Map. Moreover, it addresses the challenges encountered during the creation and maintenance of this Map. Finally, the paper explores the future directions and ongoing work in this important endeavor.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it