MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6968574053 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.4036257

Artificial Intelligence and the Book Industry. White Paper

2020· article· en· W6968574053 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)White (mutation)White paperCompetition (biology)Order (exchange)Work (physics)Field (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) in the book world is a reality. Indeed, it is not reserved for sales platforms or medical applications. AI can assist writing, accompany editorial work or help the bookseller. It can respond to crying needs; despite its obvious limitations, it can be used to consider new applications in the book chain, which are the subject of specific recommendations here. This white paper, written by two specialists in the field of books and artificial intelligence, aims to identify ways to put AI at the service of the many links in the book world. “Planning for this cultural niche’s immediate future must be done and specific actions must be undertaken in order to establish new methods and models. This white paper will outline a possible course of action: the idea of a concerted effort by book industry actors in the use of AI.” This consultation is called for by a number of experts, who testify in this White Paper of the stakes specific to the current cultural context threatened by the giants of commerce : “Although use of AI calls for constant vigilance, it seems important that actors in the book industry pay close attention to these technological advances, as much to the potential disruptions as to the possible benefits they could entail.” (Virginie Clayssen, Éditis / Digital committee of the French Publishers Association) Thus, “the key to introducing AI, thought as augmented intelligence, to different links in the book chain is undoubtedly exploitation of data that is already available and that the competition does not possess”.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0230.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0080.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0890.035

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicAI in Service InteractionsFrench-language works237,207