MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W89970413

Physical vs Virtual Astronomy Libraries --- Discussion

2003· article· en· W89970413 on OpenAlexaff
Marlene Cummins

Bibliographic record

VenueUSENIX Large Installation Systems Administration Conference · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAstronomical Observations and Instrumentation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace (punctuation)Session (web analytics)Library scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0210.007
Scholarly communication0.0260.050
Open science0.0070.024
Research integrity0.0240.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1380.017

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUSENIX Large Installation Systems Administration ConferenceSame topicAstronomical Observations and InstrumentationFrench-language works237,207