MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7098620816

THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CENTER: A NEW DIMENSION

2010· article· en· W7098620816 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStreptococcal Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationFunction (biology)Possession (linguistics)Dimension (graph theory)Center (category theory)Rank (graph theory)Quality (philosophy)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because there has been particular interest in a report on the documentary work done in the Centre de Documentation at Laval University, and especially in its use of the Miracode machine, I will give a general account of our experience at Laval in setting up this documentation center which operates under the auspices of the University Library. The documentation center is designed to assist both teachers and those engaged in research. Its function is not, as some may imagine, primarily to collate documents not in the possession of the library, but rather to extract from books, periodicals, and other documents information which may be needed for purposes of teaching and research by the various faculties and institutes of the University. Before discussing the work of the center perhaps observations would be in order. some background In France, when a professional librarian attains a rank equivalent to that of a "senior librarian " in America, he is given the title of "conservateur " (i.e., conserver). I believe, whether we like to admit it or not, it is indisputable that a major, if not principal, function of the professional librarian has long been and still is the conservation of books. The first criterion of the quality of a library, for example, is still the over-all quantity of volumes it contains. Even in our day, this criterion takes precedence over most others. I know one university library that refused for three years to give up a collection of one hundred thousand law books which logically belonged in the library of the faculty of law, because by surrendering them, the general library would have fallen below its boasted one million volumes. Also, as a member of a study group on scientific and technical information in Canada, I have recently participated in public meetings held at a 1 number of Canadian universities, and conducted numerous interviews with faculty members, researchers, graduate students, librarians and directors of data processing centers. Since the official report of the group is not yet published, I am at this time in no position to offer any predictions concerning its findings and recommendations. But on the whole, the experience of the group appears to bear out Bonn's observation, as noted by Robert B. Downs

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.021
Science and technology studies0.0150.031
Scholarly communication0.0880.095
Open science0.0040.025
Research integrity0.0130.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.007

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.194 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStreptococcal Infections and Treatments→French-language works237,207→