The future of reference and information services in a virtual world
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
RQ1: How have reference and information services changed with the increasing influence of online information and information environments? RQ2: What are the likely next developments in virtual reference and information services? Data were gathered using two methods. First, the researchers conducted a series of three focus groups at the ASIS T and ALISE annual meetings from January 2008 through January 2009. The focus group attendees were professors and instructors who teach reference and information courses at ALA-accredited universities in the U.S. and Canada. There were a total of 16 participants from 13 universities. Next, the researchers collected data from audience members at a town hall-style meeting of faculty and others interested in digital reference education at the ALISE 2009 annual meeting. Approximately 55 audience members took part in the town hall meeting, at which the presenters briefly discussed their current reference and information services-related research and then asked the audience members to address four research questions, two of which are addressed in this poster. The data were analyzed using the constant comparative method, the most common method for analyzing qualitative data (Glase Strauss, 1967; Lincoln Guba, 1985). The constant comparative method involves repeatedly reading through a set of data, grouping and regrouping individual pieces of data into multiple sets of smaller groups until the set of groups that best answers the research questions is found. Data analysis showed that virtual reference and information services, and reference and information services in general, have changed greatly due to the influence of the electronic information explosion and of the steady stream of new information technologies as well. Six major themes relating to the current and future state of virtual and face-to-face reference emerged: These six themes indicate a continued shift away from a linear reference process, in which the librarian is the information provider and the user is information receiver, to a more interactive, collaborative reference model, in which the reference librarian and the reference user both play the roles of information seeker, information receiver, and information creator. As these roles continue to evolve, the challenge will be to design and implement technologies that can support and enhance them. This research was supported by a grant from the Institute for Museum Library Services (IMLS) under the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Grant program.
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 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 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».