Advocacy and evidence for sustainable public computer access
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose This paper aims to draw together the evidence‐based advocacy experience of five national programs focused on developing public access information and communications technologies (ICT) via public libraries as grantees of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's Global Libraries Initiative. Design/methodology/approach The authors describe a common approach to strategic advocacy and to impact planning and assessment. They then outline the experience of each program in using a range of evidence to help meet specific advocacy objectives. They give particular attention to how each program is using specific evidence to convince key players of the importance of public access ICT provided by public libraries in meeting the objectives of the key players. Findings This collective experience shows that when advocating at the national level, statistical data and empirical evidence can demonstrate that public libraries contribute to stakeholders' goals. Such data can include technology skills that users have gained as well as how users improve their businesses, become better educated, and access government services. Common denominators from the programs include a disproportionate positive impact achieved (or anticipated) in rural communities and on relatively disadvantaged groups such as older workers, old people and unemployed people. Practical implications Both the general approach to evidence‐based advocacy described and the specific messages about targeting advocacy efforts on key players and on the service users who are most likely to benefit from public access ICT are of potential value to anyone planning a national, regional or local advocacy program focused on public libraries and their services. Social implications As the paper deals with global library advocacy issues, and impact planning, it is hoped it is a step towards more measurable social impact for libraries. Originality/value This is the first full public report of the Global Libraries approach to evidence‐based advocacy as conducted in the five countries represented in the paper. It is part of a steadily growing body of knowledge being amassed by Global Libraries about effective provision of public access ICT via public libraries in a range of countries.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,019 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle