Physical vs Virtual Astronomy Libraries --- Discussion
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A lively question/answer and discussion session followed the formal presentations of the panel speakers. Flora Grabowska: How often are astronomers in China using English vs Chinese publications? Zhang Jian: Mainly English. Flora Grabowska: Print subscriptions are continuing; for instance: has anybody cancelled the print version of MNRAS? A 25% surcharge has to be paid for this expensive publication; e-only would be desirable, but astronomers don’t want it. Sandra Ricketts: I have done some investigation lately; e-only is the direction to go, especially for the most expensive, like MNRAS. I did some testing; for some journals I have not put the latest issues on display. I haven’t received any complaints at all. (Issues are available from the librarian upon request.) Michelle Storey: Astronomers like the smell of paper; I suggest including a sniff-pad with e-versions. Marlene Cummins: Can we see a show of handshow many people have cancelled the print version of an e-journal? [About 5 people.] Kathleen Robertson: OSA packages (JOSA A/B, Optics Letters etc.) eversions are available now; an agreement was reached that the main campus library of my university would continue subscribing to print; my site library would have e-journals only. I’ve had good feedback so far. Bill Claspy: ApJ is a space eater and in small libraries space matters! The journal has been accessible through ADS for a long time, astronomers are familiar with it. I’m comfortable online. Consideration: if you cancel print, are you losing access to what you paid for in the past? Donna Coletti: In Cambridge we have two copies of the core journals and will be cancelling one copy. At our branch library at the Whipple Observatory (FLWO) in Arizona, we plan to cancel as many paper subscriptions as possible within the next year. Our new ”virtual” branch library at the Submillimeter Array (SMA) in Hilo, Hawaii is entirely electronic and is managed by staff at the Wolbach Library in Cambridge. This is all happening right now so it is too early to report on success or failure.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it