MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2098129406 · doi:10.5860/rusq.49n2.108

A Year in the Life

2009· article· en· W2098129406 sur OpenAlex

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.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueReference & User Services Quarterly · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLibrary scienceSpace (punctuation)Public relationsSociologyPolitical scienceManagementComputer scienceEconomics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Academic Business Library Directors (ABLD), an association consisting of the directors of libraries at the preeminent business schools in the United States and Canada, comes together each year to discuss issues of interest. Prior to the meeting, members are asked to respond to a questionnaire on what has happened in their libraries in the previous year. This survey results in the Annual Review, a collaborative report on new initiatives, organizational changes, space and collection issues, business school events, and the budget situations in their libraries. Roye Werner compiled this year's Annual Review. This article contains the highlights from that report, which were also presented at the latest ABLD meeting, held at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, April 21-23, 2009. These trends will be of interest to many RUSQ readers because they relate to broad concerns that affect libraries of all types.--Editor When I switched from being a public business librarian to an academic one three years ago, I thought I should get my collegiate bearings by studying some relevant journals. I spent some time perusing, among other publications, the Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, which turned out to be right on target for that purpose--and it was there, through references in various articles and reports, that I learned about the Academic Business Library Directors (ABLD) association. ABLD is a small, specialized association, consisting of the directors of libraries at the preeminent business schools in the United States and Canada. The first meeting--which was inspired by discussions at the College and Universities Business Libraries Roundtable at the Special Libraries Association-was held in May 1987 at the Columbia University's Watson Library at the invitation of their business librarian Jane Winland. It began with less than a dozen members; today, membership is limited to fifty. As described in the charter (www.abld.org/charter.html), ABLE) provides a forum for directors of academic business libraries to discuss mutual concerns and share information. Interests include: managerial and administrative issues and trends; cooperative initiatives to preserve and provide access to unique collections in business; opportunities to influence development of new products and services for the academic business library market and to influence contract development (vendor relations); and opportunities for informal collaboration and networking. The organization has frequent contact and occasional meetings with sibling groups overseas, such as the European Business Schools Librarians' Group and the Asia Pacific Business School Librarians' Group, and recently has communicated with the newly formed Agrupacion de Directores de Centros de Informacion in Latin America. Lucky for me, I soon became a member, and have since made good use of the group's accumulated wisdom and collegial support through their e-mail list, statistics compilations, conference sessions, website, and professional contacts. Perhaps the most extensive and revealing form of information gathering takes place a few months before the annual meeting, when the Annual Review is compiled. An editor sends a questionnaire to all members, who are asked to describe and record their reflections on what has happened in their libraries in the past year. The results are combined and distributed, and the editor then tries to make sense of the collected responses--finding common themes, shared concerns, and standout events and ideas--to report on at the conference. This past year, I had the privilege of being that editor, and saw the process through, from distributing the questions to presenting the synthesis. For this latest Annual Review, we asked the members to report on the following: * new and ongoing initiatives * library organizational changes and new staff * physical space * collection and vendor issues * business school issues, organizational changes, and new initiatives * effects of the current economic situation * other Detailed and thoughtful reports came in from forty-three of our forty-nine members (an 88 percent response rate! …

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut 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 enseignants0,682
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,738

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

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

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,218
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