Electronic Resources: which are worth preserving & what is their role in library collections? [English version presented at the International Conference] = Le risorse elettroniche: quali vale la pena di conservare e qual è il loro ruolo nelle raccolte della biblioteca? [Versione italiana presentata alla Conferenza internazionale]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Libraries across the world are spending increasing amounts of money on the acquisition of, and giving access to, electronic resources of all kinds. In addition, those libraries are devoting increasing amounts of human resources to advise and teach library users how to use electronic resources. The major issue facing libraries today is that of the preservation and onward transmission of the human record. This task has been accepted, usually tacitly, by many generations of librarians and archivists. The answer lies in some innovative and strong-minded research—in particular, we need an enumeration and taxonomy of the Web and the Internet. We could combat this electronic triumphalism by embarking on a serious enumeration and taxonomy of the Web and the Net that is aimed at identifying and isolating those documents and resources that are worth cataloguing and preserving. The starting point should be the grand idea of Universal Bibliographic Control, first put forward more than a quarter of century ago, in which individual libraries, regions, and countries cooperate to produce and share records without redundancy. Then there is the question of cataloguing and metadata. Metadata is an ill-considered attempt to find some kind of Third Way between the wilderness of search engines and free text searching and the grand architecture of bibliographic control that librarians have developed over the last 150 years.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.011 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".