Las relaciones interprofesionales en las listas de distribución de información y documentación españolas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Las listas de distribución son ampliamente empleadas por los profesionales españoles de la información. Se realiza un estudio descriptivo de los principales foros de debate sobre información alojados en el servidor de listas de la RedIRIS, indicando sus ámbitos temáticos, sus administradores, el número de suscriptores y su procedencia geográfica, entre otras informaciones. El estudio se centra en la tipología de los mensajes enviados a las listas, ofreciendo datos acerca de sus contenidos. Del análisis de la temática se desprende que la mayorparte de los mensajes sirven para informar de aspectos de interés profesional. Otro bloque importante demensajes está formado por aquellos que solicitan cualquier tipo de información profesional. También existen otros contenidos de menor frecuencia: informaciones bibliográficas, oferta de duplicados, etc.
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 | 0.010 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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.
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".