DESCRIPTORS *Foreign Countries; *Government Publications; *Library Collections; Library Sarvices; *University Libraries; Use Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study was made on a reorganization of the holdin s of government document in the University into a separate collection. On the basis of evidence presented in the course of the study, depository stdtas for ail Canadian Federal Documents for the library, and a separate documents division to control and service them was recommended. The arguments were more related to the logic of future deve1opments, rather than the existing conditions that prevailed. If the use and size of government documents could be stabilized at present levels, then the expertise of a documents librarian, without the device of separation, should prove sufficient. The evidence from projections, however, was more than compelling, and even if some element of speculation in these projections was accepted, broad trends of academic development on the campus have been irrevocably set. To this extent, the development and control of government documents on the lines recommended seem inevitabl (Author/AB) c=st
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.036 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.266 | 0.074 |
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".