Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unseen Labor is an international library community-organizing embroidery project created by Ann Kardos, a metadata librarian at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Ann conceived of the project to ask library cataloging and metadata professionals to examine their stories and experiences centering unseen labor, both physical and emotional. It was posted on three metadata and cataloging listservs in the fall of 2021 and received a great response. There are approximately 60 metadata creators following the project, from all over the United States (including Alaska and Hawaii), Canada and the United Kingdom. The group represents a wide variety of libraries and services, including academic, public and museum libraries, archives and non-profit library groups. Contributors were asked to create a cross stitch or embroidery piece that would share a story about unseen labor, experiences in our libraries, our work, projects we’re proud of and more.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.012 |
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".