MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1572115582 · doi:10.18438/b86913

The Presence of Web 2.0 Applications Is Associated with the Overall Service Quality of Library Websites

2011· article· en· W1572115582 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Leslie Bussert

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueWeb and Library Services
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésWorld Wide WebComputer scienceRanking (information retrieval)Quality (philosophy)WebometricsThe InternetCoding (social sciences)Content analysisInformation retrievalLibrary scienceMathematicsSociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A Review of: Chua, A. Y. K., & Goh, D. H. (2010). A study of Web 2.0 applications in library websites. Library & Information Science Research, 32(3), 203-211. Objective – To determine the prevalence and use of web 2.0 applications in library websites and to determine whether or not their presence enhances the quality of the sites. Design – Content analysis. Setting – Public and academic libraries in North America, Europe, and Asia. Subjects – A total of 120 academic and public library websites in English. Methods – This study identified and selected library websites from academic and public libraries using a combination of directories, ratings reports, and ranking lists from three geographic regions. Over a four-month period in 2009, three coders conducted a three-step content analysis of the selected library websites. This analysis was conducted after having established inter-coder reliability using Cohen’s Kappa and analytic procedure familiarity, using a randomly selected pilot set of 30 library websites. The remaining 90 websites were evenly distributed among the three coders for analysis. They determined whether web 2.0 applications were present, examined how those applications were used, and gave an overall appraisal of website quality. Coders inspected library website links, conducted site searches, used search engines, and searched within major social networking sites to determine the presence of web 2.0 applications. A quality framework classification scheme was used during coding to identify how the web 2.0 applications were being used within library websites. This framework was established around four dimensions of library services: information acquisition (blogs and wikis), information dissemination (Rich Site Summary, or “RSS”), information organization (social tagging), and information sharing (social networking and instant messaging). A five-point Likert scale was also used in concert with a website quality evaluation framework to assess the quality of the library websites. This framework included three aspects of website quality: system quality, information quality, and service quality. A combination of statistical techniques such as Chi-square analysis, Cramer’s V, analysis of variance, Tukey’s statistic, and multiple regression were then used to analyze the findings. Main Results – Web 2.0 applications have been adopted by libraries across North America, Europe, and Asia. The most popular web 2.0 applications were blogs (56.6%), RSS (50%), and instant messaging services (46.6%) while less prevalent were social networking services (20%), wikis (16.6%), and social tagging applications (16.6%). The extent of libraries’ adoption of web 2.0 applications also varied according to region. North American libraries used all web 2.0 applications most consistently and were more attuned to heavier users, particularly with regard to information sharing applications (e.g., instant messaging, social networking). European libraries lagged behind those in Asia in embracing information acquisition applications (e.g., blogs, wikis) but were comparable to other regions. Social networking services and instant messaging were strongly associated with region; RSS, blogs, and social tagging showed moderate to moderately strong associations; and only wikis did not demonstrate a statistically significant association with region. This study also identified how web 2.0 applications were being used. Blogs were used to generate interest, engage users, and endear users to library personnel, while wikis culled resources from users thematically. RSS feeds communicated news, events or resource updates, and were also used in combination with library blogs. Social tagging invited users to save, organize, and share information, while some websites used librarian-generated tags for search and discovery or included them as tag clouds in library blogs. Instant messaging was used to assist users synchronously during scheduled timeslots; meanwhile, social networking sites offered alternate channels to communicate and build connections with users. The authors found a relationship between website quality and the presence of web 2.0 applications based on the criteria presented in their quality evaluation framework. Applications facilitating information sharing (i.e., social networks and instant messaging) had a stronger influence on a website’s overall quality than those being used for information acquisition and dissemination (i.e., RSS, wikis, and blogs). Web 2.0 applications among academic and public libraries shared a similar level of presence on the library websites; therefore, the type of library is not associated with the quality of the library website. North American websites tended to be higher in quality than European or Asian library websites, and differences in quality between European and Asian sites were insignificant. Conclusion – This study reveals that libraries in various geographic regions adopt web 2.0 applications differently. Web 2.0 applications in library websites enhance users’ experience with library resources and support their interests. Library websites are implementing web 2.0 applications in a myriad of ways, including using these applications in concert with one another to increase user engagement. The presence of web 2.0 applications strongly affects service quality but only weakly influences information quality.

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)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,046
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: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,024

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,046
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0050,006
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0040,003
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

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 Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,242
Écart entre enseignants0,219 · 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

Citations0
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeMême sujetWeb and Library ServicesTravaux en français237 207