MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1519499233 · doi:10.18438/b88c7p

Library Users Expect Link Resolvers to Provide Full Text While Librarians Expect Accurate Results

2006· article· en· W1519499233 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wendy Furlan

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLibrary scienceComputer scienceService (business)World Wide WebBusiness

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A review of: Wakimoto, Jina Choi, David S. Walker, and Katherine S. Dabbour. "The Myths and Realities of SFX in Academic Libraries." The Journal of Academic Librarianship 32.2 (Mar. 2006): 127-36. Objective – To determine how successful the link resolver, SFX, is in meeting the expectations of library users and librarians. Design – Analysis of an online user survey, library staff focus groups, retrospective analysis of system statistics, and test searches. Setting – Two California State University campus libraries in the United States: Northbridge, with over 31,000 students on campus, and San Marcos, with over 7,300 students on campus. Subjects – A total of 453 online survey responses were submitted from library users, 421 from Northbridge and 32 from San Marcos. Twenty librarians took part in the focus groups conducted with library staff consisting of 14 of the 23 librarians from Northbridge (2 from technical services and 12 from public services), and 6 of the 10 San Marcos librarians (3 from technical services and 3 from public services). No further information was provided on the characteristics of the subjects. Methods – An online survey was offered to users of the two campus libraries for a two-week period in May 2004. The survey consisted of 8 questions, 7 fixed response and 1 free text. Survey distribution was enabled via a different mechanism at each campus. The Northbridge library offered the survey to users via a pop-up window each time the SFX service was clicked on, while the San Marcos library presented the survey as a link from the library’s home page. Survey responses from both campuses were combined and analysed together. Focus groups were conducted with librarians from each campus library on April 20th, 21st, and 29th, 2004. Librarians attended focus groups only with others from their own campus. Statistics were gathered from each campus’ local SFX system for the 3-month period from September 14, 2004, to December 14, 2004. Statistics from each campus were combined for analysis. The authors also conducted 224 test searches over the 3-month period from July to September, 2004. Main results – Analysis of the surveys revealed that 80% of users expected to see a full-text article online when they clicked on the SFX button; 20% expected to rarely or never see one. Responses also gave an almost equal split when users were asked if the SFX service met their expectations with 49.5% saying it did and 50.5% saying it did not. The free text survey question asking for comments on the user’s overall opinion of SFX received 174 responses, 26% of which were positive, 40% negative, and 34% mixed. The primary theme expressed in 49% of all comments received was disappointment in not gaining full-text access. Thirty-three percent of other comments were classed as having a general theme, while the remaining 19% of comments regarding the SFX service were categorised with themes of complexity, technical problems, efficiency, or confusion. Results from the librarian focus groups differed between the two campuses. Northbridge librarians had 50% to 85% confidence in the accuracy of SFX and were generally impressed with the service. San Marcos librarians had 60% to 100% confidence that SFX would work, however it was also discovered that several participants had suspicions regarding the accuracy of the system. The SFX usage statistics obtained covered 188,944 individual uses of SFX at both campuses. Statistics showed that 48% of these uses resulted in the user clicking on an option provided, either linking to full-text, catalogue look-up, or inter-library loan form access. Of total occurrences, 39.7% had a link to full-text displayed; this link was accessed 65.2% of the time. Forty-seven percent of SFX uses provided a catalogue link (23.8% of which were accessed) and 37.9% of uses provided an inter-library loan link (8.4% of which were accessed). The test searches revealed anomalies to take into account when analysing the SFX usage statistics, including that about 15% of SFX requests display multiple full-text links. Of the test searches conducted, 22.2% of full-text availability results ended in either technical or accuracy errors and 8.8% of catalogue look-ups produced errors. In those cases where errors did not result there were also significant percentages of instances where the library did not have access to the desired resource: 35.3% of searches correctly indicated that no full text was available, and 57.6% correctly linked to the catalogue to show that the periodical was not held locally. While these are correctly generated system results they are still likely to be seen as unfavourable outcomes by users. Conclusion – The results of the study indicated that both library users’ and librarians’ expectations of SFX were slightly higher than their actual experiences. Librarians’ primary concerns related to the need for more accurate results while library users wanted more full text. It was noted that many complaints associated with SFX were likely to actually be problems with systems that SFX links into rather than the software itself. Although imperfect, SFX, and link resolvers in general, are noted to be a vast improvement on the many separate searches required in the past to locate full text and undoubtedly user expectations and demand for 100% seamless accessibility will grow.

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,044
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,202
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCommunication savante
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,980
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,232

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0440,202
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,007
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,005
Communication savante0,0200,027
Science ouverte0,0020,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0060,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0320,050

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,221
Écart entre enseignants0,205 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeMême sujetLibrary Collection Development and Digital ResourcesTravaux en français237 207