Educational supplementary bibliographic relationships from FRBR point of view: A Canadian Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: One of the aims of library catalogs is to clearly represent the relationships existing between two or more bibliographic entities, enabling users to make sense of these relationships. Educational bibliographic relationships are the relationships between an educational work, such as a textbook, and its related works. The main interest of this study was to understand the nature of the supplementary work-to-work bibliographic relationships among educational works and the constitution of educational bibliographic families in the Canadian context using AMICUS (the Canadian national catalog). A thorough understanding of educational bibliographic relationships is required for understanding the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) supplementary relationships. \nDesign/methodology/approach: We studied the extent and size of educational bibliographic relationships in the bibliographic universe found in the AMICUS catalog. This is an empirical investigation into the nature and extent of educational work-to-work bibliographic relationships by examining title of works, notes and added entries in bibliographic records. The study was carried out between September 1st 2010 and December 22nd 2010 and examines educational bibliographic relationships between Canadian 2009 publications in each class of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). In other words, this study poses two main questions: What is the structure of educational supplementary bibliographic relationships in Canadian publications? Do significant differences exist across the ten DDC classes? \nFindings: Results show that 595 works of the 2009 bibliographic records in the AMICUS catalog contain an educational supplementary bibliographic relationship. Of the Canadian publications with an educational supplementary work-to-work bibliographic relationship that were studied, the rates of educational bibliographic relationships were relatively high in the fields of Science (27%), Technology (22%), Social Sciences (20%), and Language (19%). The results of this study suggest a set of guidelines for the establishment and maintenance of educational bibliographic relationships. \nOriginality/value: This is the first research to examine the educational bibliographic relationships, as supplementary relationships.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.049 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".