Comparing the Use of Books with Enhanced Records versus Those Without Enhancements: Methodology Leads to Questionable Conclusions
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
A review of:
 
 Madarash-Hill, Cherie and J.B. Hill. “Electronically Enriched Enhancements in Catalog Records: A Use Study of Books Described on Records With URL Enhancements Versus Those Without.” Technical Services Quarterly 23.2 (2005): 19-31. 
 
 Abstract
 
 Objective – To compare the use of books described by catalogue records that are enhanced with URL links to such information as dust jackets, tables of contents, sample text, and publishers’ descriptions, with the use of books described by records that are not enhanced with such links. 
 
 Design – Use study.
 
 Setting – Academic library (Southeastern Louisiana University, Sims Memorial Library).
 
 Subjects – 180 records with enhancements and 180 records (different titles) without enhancements.
 
 Methods – The study identified the sample of unenhanced records by conducting searches of the broad subject terms “History”, “United States”, “Education”, and “Social” and limiting the searches to books. The enhanced sample was derived in the same manner, but with additional search limiters to identify only those records that had URL enhancements. An equal sample of enhanced and unenhanced records (50 or 30 of each) was tracked for each of four search terms. Only records for books that could be checked out were included, as use statistics were based on whether or not a book was borrowed. While half of the enhanced records had full-text elements (such as descriptions) that were indexed and thus searchable, the rate of use for these records was not tracked separately from the enhanced records that only had URL enhancements.
 
 Main results – Books described on records with URL enhancements for publisher descriptions, tables of contents, book reviews, or sample text had higher use than those without URL enhancements. Only 7% of titles with URLs, compared with 21% of those without, had not been borrowed. 74.67% of titles with URLs had been checked out one or two times, compared with 69.5% of those without URLs. The number of titles with enhanced records that had 3 or more checkouts was almost double the rate of unenhanced titles (18% to 9.5%). 
 
 Conclusion – The authors conclude that catalogue records that have electronic links to book reviews, cover jackets, tables of contents, or publisher descriptions can lead to higher use of books, particularly if textual enhancements such as descriptions are also searchable.
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 | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,169 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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