MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098881785

LIBRARY SERVICES FOR USERS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS- THE STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THE CROATIAN CAPITAL AND PLANS FOR THE FUTURE Summary

2010· article· en· W7098881785 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiological and pharmacological studies of plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrder (exchange)State (computer science)DisadvantagedQuarter (Canadian coin)CroatianInformation needsInformation accessInformation systemCapital (architecture)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every person has the right to information and knowledge. Individuals who are not able to use conventional library services depend on information professionals as well as on information technology. According to goals of IFLA’s Section of Libraries Serving Disadvantaged Persons, authors would like to promote free access to information in Croatia. In order to start on the known basis, it has been decided that a research needs to be conducted with the aim of getting an exact picture of the state of affairs in the field of serving special needs users. It took place during the summer of 2000 in Zagreb and its surrounding area, which makes one quarter of the Croatian population. Hospitals, prisons, homes for the aged and associations for people with special needs were included in the research. Public and university libraries were also part of the research, but at a more superficial level. In the next phase in 2001 a more complex research will be conducted in order to examine them thoroughly. In the article the results of the research are presented. The assumptions with which we started were confirmed. These are: 1) libraries and library services for

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.226 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 topicBiological and pharmacological studies of plantsFrench-language works237,207