Yet Another PDA Presentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past few years PDA (Patron-Driven Acquisitions) has moved from experimental to a mainstream strategy for accessing e-books. As PDA has matured we are less likely to ask "Should we offer PDA" and more likely to ask "How should we offer PDA". This Lively Lunch is facilitated by representatives from three very diverse academic libraries that are offering PDA in widely varying ways, and who are realizing that the "A" in "PDA" could stand for "Access" instead of "Acquisitions".\nAt McMaster University we have used mediated short term loans and purchases from EBL since 2007, and have participated in a consortial PDA pilot with Ebrary. We're currently modeling the effects of purchase triggers as we contemplate a move to unmediated access.\nAt Western University we have been experimenting with PDA since 2007. Applying the lessons learned after completing pilot projects with EBL, Ingram Coutts, and with our provincial consortium we were able to successfully incorporate PDA into our regular acquisitions processes.\nAt Providence College, we decided "play it safe", and not acquire ANY e-books simply based on patrons' requests. Instead, we chose what was then a unique offering from EBL - the ability to provide access as short-term loans instead of purchases. While the program started out as an experiment, we've grown very fond of it, as it inexpensively bridges gaps in Collection Development and ILL.\nThe presenters will share PDA experiences at their institution, provide some insights into trends, and offer attendees the opportunity to tell about their own adventures in PDA. Come prepared for a lively discussion on: New options for PDA Assessing value How we done it good: best experiences with PDA Tales from the crypt: what didn't work.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.678 | 0.433 |
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".