MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7018014174

Comparing Toronto Public Library's Kanopy Service with Traditional Classification and Subject Access Tools

2023· article· en· W7018014174 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridging (networking)Digital libraryService (business)Interface (matter)Subject (documents)User interfaceService designDigital transformation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ongoing transformation of libraries in the digital age is marked by the adoption of new technologies and innovative services to cater to the evolving needs of users. One such example is the integration of streaming platforms like Kanopy into library systems, offering a convenient and user-friendly experience to patrons. The Toronto Public Library (TPL) has adopted Kanopy to provide its users with access to a diverse range of films and documentaries, effectively bridging the gap between traditional library classification and subject access tools, and modern streaming services (Digital Library Services, n.d.). This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of TPL's Kanopy service in addressing user needs and expectations and to explore how the service compares to other popular streaming platforms. The paper will examine the user experience of Kanopy, including its interface design, search features, and user satisfaction. Furthermore, the study will investigate the challenges faced in incorporating non-library features into library services and the implications for library interface design (Mundt & Medaille, 2011). By conducting this analysis, the paper seeks to contribute to a better understanding of how libraries can adapt and innovate to meet the changing demands of users in the digital age.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.278
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.018 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicLibrary Collection Development and Digital ResourcesFrench-language works237,207