Whither Library Data: The Withering of Research Information about Public Libraries in the <scp>US</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The field of information science has deep roots in library science, and the two are often discussed as one discipline (i.e., library and information science). In addition, library‐centric research has often been included in the Annual Meetings of ASIS&T. Nonetheless, research centered in and around libraries frequently faces many challenges in our discipline—including a sense of disrespect or under‐appreciation for work in and around libraries and library workers. This panel focuses on the challenges of finding, collecting, and analyzing library‐centered data. We discuss these hurdles to push for a more productive research landscape around library science. Five panelists will descript their work and the obstacles they have encountered. The panel will include an open discussion with the audience, focusing on how we as a research community might alleviate these challenges.
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 | 0.243 | 0.454 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.045 | 0.051 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".