MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W228292421

The History of Fiction_L. (Readers' Advisory)

2002· article· en· W228292421 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. M. Johnson, Natalya Fishman

Notice bibliographique

RevueReference & User Services Quarterly · 2002
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiquePublishing and Scholarly Communication
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésConversationThe InternetWorld Wide WebEntertainmentOrder (exchange)Internet privacySign (mathematics)SociologyComputer scienceMedia studiesPsychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceBusinessLawCommunication
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

While the Internet is more often touted by librarians as an enhanced information retrieval and delivery device, I prefer its community-building aspects, and nowhere are they more on display than on professional discussion lists, genre Web sites, and discussion groups. Fiction_L has been a godsend to many librarians in RA positions and roles, not only for its instant assistance from fellow librarians on every conceivable readers' advisory (RA) topic, but also for its archives of list member--generated bibliographies. Luckily I don't have to argue for its replication elsewhere because Maureen O'Connor has started RA_Talk (on Yahoo! Groups) in Canada. Having these interactive tools allows the fledgling RA community to grow and learn from each other while needed information is shared and preserved.--Editor The electronic mailing list, sometimes called a listserv (a trademarked term), has become a staple for Internet-savvy librarians everywhere. The nature of the list is straightforward: you sign up with a group of like-minded people in order to discuss a particular topic, and everyone's comments are e-mailed to everyone else. Many lists are moderated by one or more people who guide the conversation when necessary and try to prevent blatant advertising or other unpleasantness. Most mailing lists archive their postings in some fashion, although the archives may be limited to subscribers or lack a search facility. Every list tends to have its own personality, rhythm, and strengths, whether those are entertainment, controversy, or instant answers. Described as one of the most gracious mailing lists for librarians, Fiction_L's history describes the development of a close-knit virtual community. Origins of Fiction_L by Roberta Johnson What is now a lively online resource for hundreds of people began at a semiannual meeting of readers' advisory managers in the Chicago suburbs in 1995. Every four months a handful of public librarians assembled to discuss the marketing of fiction in their libraries. We talked about summer reading clubs, innovative displays, hiring (and keeping) RA staff, and many other topics of interest. Several of us were the only official RA person at their library, and we always ended our meeting with treasure hunts; those elusive patron requests for a five-year-old suspense novel, set in the wilds of Montana, with a red cover. These afternoons were always stimulating, always full of new ideas, and always fun. Wouldn't it be great, I thought, if we could communicate more easily and more often? Between us, we had years of fiction knowledge and library experience to share, but little time to meet regularly. Perhaps e-mail would allow us to pose questions and chat informally. Since the Morton Grove Public Library, where I was readers' services librarian at the time, was one of the first libraries to explore and exploit the value of online resources, this project was a natural for the staff to pursue. At that time the North Suburban Library System (NSLS) operated several electronic mailing lists to help reference, technical, and administrative staff share problems and ideas, so I contacted Andy Bullen, then their systems administrator, and broached the idea of creating a list for RA staff. He and the system agreed to host the list on the NSLS server, and I went back to the RA managers group for ideas and input. We came up with a catchy name, Fiction_L, and broad guidelines to describe and promote the fledgling mailing list. The list's primary goal remains consistent six years later: to provide a forum for library staff who work with fiction collections and promote RA services. The discussion was open to fiction lovers of every stripe, whether writers or readers, as we hoped to create a collective consciousness to answer questions on every genre of fiction. The only caveat we described was a ban on simple book reviews, as there were already several mailing lists for this purpose. …

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)0,019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,054
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,180

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,019
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0090,010
Communication savante0,0150,008
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,008
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0540,035

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 Opus0,055
Tête enseignante GPT0,216
Écart entre enseignants0,160 · 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'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

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
Publié2002
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueReference & User Services QuarterlyMême sujetPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationTravaux en français237 207