Index to <i>E-JASL: Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship</i>, ISSN: 1704-8532
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following is an index of all of the articles published in E-JASL: Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship. The journal was published from 1999 through 2009. With Paul Haschak’s permission as overseer of the compilation, its articles have been archived at https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ejasljournal/. As of June 15, 2020, they were also still available at http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/index.html.\nThe masthead that appeared on the southernlibrarian site as of June 15, 2020 is reproduced here:\nE-JASL: Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship (ISSN: 1704-8532) is an independent, professional, refereed electronic journal dedicated first and foremost to advancing knowledge and research in the areas of academic and special librarianship. We are committed to covering all aspects of academic and special librarianship without regard to region or country. We are also committed to the principles of open access for academic research.\nThe first two volumes were titled the Journal of Southern Academic and Special Librarianship (ISSN: 1525-321X)\nEditorial Board: Paul Haschak, Executive Editor, Board President, and Co-Founder; Jean Caswell, Editor-in-Chief and Web Site Coordinator; Gentry Holbert, Deputy Editor; J. B. Hill, Associate, Deputy Editor; Cherie Madarash-Hill, Associate Deputy Editor; Todd Spires, Associate Editor; Elaine Peterson, Associate Editor\nEditors Emeriti: Adam Chandler, Co-Founder, Editor Emeritus; Elizabeth Dickerson Orgeron, Co-Founder, Editor Emeritus; In Memorium--Dan Foley\nPublished and distributed by the International Consortium for the Advancement of Academic Publication (ICAAP), Athabasca, Canada\nPermanently archived in the National Library of Canada's Electronic Publications Collection\nListed in the Directory of Open Access Journals\nIndexed in LISA (Library and Information Science Abstracts) beginning with volume 5\nIndexed in Library Literature and Information Science beginning with volume 1\nE-JASL: Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship ceased publication after volume 10, in 2009.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.650 | 0.712 |
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".