Looking and Listening: A Mixed-Methods Study of Space Use and User Satisfaction
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Objective – This study was designed to assess users' reactions to two newly re-designed spaces – one intended for quiet study and the other for group study – in the busiest library branch of a large research university. The researchers sought to answer the following questions: For which activity (group work, quiet study, and lounging or relaxing) do the users feel the space is most effective? Which furniture pieces do users prefer and for which activities? How are these spaces being used? Methods – Researchers used a mixed-methods approach for this study. Two methods – surveys and comment boards – were used to gather user feedback on preference for use of the space and users’ feelings about particular furniture types. A third method – observation – was used to determine which of the particular areas and furniture pieces occupants were using most, for which activities the furniture was most commonly used, and what types of possessions occupants most often carried with them. Results – User opinion indicated that each of the spaces assessed was most effective for the type of activity for which it was designed. Of the 80% of respondents that indicated they would use the quiet study space for quiet study, 91% indicated that the space was either "very effective" or "effective" for that purpose. The survey results also indicated that 47% of the respondents would use the group study space for that purpose. The observation data confirmed that the quiet study space was being used primarily for individual study; however, the data for the group study space showed equal levels of use for individual and group study. Users expressed a preference for traditional furniture, such as tables and desk chairs, over comfortable pieces for group work and for quiet study. One exception was a cushioned reading chair that was the preferred item for quiet study in 23% of the responses. The white boards were chosen as a preferred item for group study by 27% of respondents. The observations showed similar results for group study, with the three table types and the desk chair being used most often. The lounge chairs and couch grouping was used most often for individual study, followed by the tables and desk chairs. Conclusion – By combining user feedback gathered through surveys and comment boards with usage patterns determined via observation data, the researchers were able to answer the questions for which their assessment was designed. Results were analyzed to compare user-stated preferences with actual behaviour and were used to make future design decisions for other library spaces. Although the results of this study are institutionally specific, the methodology could be successfully applied in other library settings.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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.
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».