MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1570452203

Has the Internet Changed Anything in Reference? The Library Visit Study, Phase 2.

2000· article· en· W1570452203 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Catherine Sheldrick Ross, Kirsti Nilsen

Notice bibliographique

RevueReference & User Services Quarterly · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésThe InternetDatabase transactionClass (philosophy)Digital referenceResource (disambiguation)World Wide WebLibrary scienceReference deskComputer sciencePsychologyService (business)BusinessArtificial intelligenceMarketing
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The Library Visit Study, Phase 2 Phase 2 of the Library Visit study examines 161 user accounts of what happened when users asked a reference question in a public or academic library of their choice between fall 1998 and spring 2000. Although the over-all success rate increased from 60 percent in phase 1 in the early 1990s to 69 percent in the current period, the problems identified in the unsuccessful cases were the same as those identified in phase 1. These problems include failure to conduct a reference interview, unmonitored referral, and failure to ask follow-up questions. A new focus of analysis in phase 2 addresses how the availability of electronic resources, including the Web, may have changed the reference transaction and affected the user's experience. A troubling finding is that reference staff seem to regard the Internet as an external resource that users can search independently--at home or on the library's public access workstations--but not as a full-fledged reference tool for which reference librarians have a responsibility to help users search and evaluate. Like so many research projects, this one started with a puzzle that arose in the course of teaching. The authors teach sections of a basic reference course with some other colleagues at the University of Western Ontario. Over the years, those of us who teach this course have put together a large file of reference questions from which we select ten reference questions for a class assignment for each course offering. Questions that turn out to be too easy or too hard are discarded, so that the question file contains several hundred tried-and-tested reference questions and best answers, classified by type of reference tool needed to answer the question. The faculty members responsible for the course recently noticed a problem: questions that previously had been adequately challenging now were too easy. For example, in the fall 1999 term, one of the authors used the question, Who is child and what is child known for? This question had formerly required students to analyze the question and take a series of logical steps to find the answer, but the 1999 students were able to find an answer in a few minutes. All they had to do was type Dart's Child into Google (www.google.com) and within the top ten hits could find several sources that either provided the answer or provided a shortcut to the answer. We wondered how many other of our reference questions could be answered by authoritative Web sources retrieved within the first ten Google hits. We decided to check systematically and discovered that we had to throw out a third of our tried-and-true questions. By virtue of answers available through just one search engine, a large number of questions--148 out of 442--had become too easy to provide useful learning experiences for students. For us, this was a dramatic illustration of the way in which the World Wide Web has transformed the landscape of reference tools. Despite all the frequently voiced criticisms of the Web--that it contains unfiltered information of dubious authority, that methods of subject control and retrieval are slap-dash, that Web pages are unstable and fugitive--one search engine, Google, proved to be an effective shortcut for finding an answer to one-third of our questions. Literature Review By 1998, evidence was beginning to accumulate in the library literature about the value of answering reference questions with resources in freely available Web sites. For example, Janes and McClure asked whether reference can now be done as well in the Web environment as in the traditional print environment and answered yes. This conclusion was based on search outcomes when twenty-four volunteer searchers tried to find answers to twelve ready reference questions using either Web or non-Web resources.[1] In this study, Web resources were restricted to freely available Web pages and did not include licensed commercial products. …

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)0,014
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,019
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,075

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0140,038
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,002
Communication savante0,0050,005
Science ouverte0,0020,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,002

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 Opus0,037
Tête enseignante GPT0,304
Écart entre enseignants0,267 · 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.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
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

Citations34
Publié2000
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueReference & User Services QuarterlyMême sujetLibrary Science and Information LiteracyTravaux en français237 207