MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4404280147 · doi:10.1108/rsr-08-2024-0042

From hype to strategy: navigating the reality of experimental strategic adoption of AI technologies in libraries

2024· article· en· W4404280147 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 Services Review · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueDigital Marketing and Social Media
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSociologyKnowledge managementBusinessComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Purpose The article highlights the value of adopting an experimental strategy for artificial intelligence (AI) adoption in libraries, with a specific focus on the University of Toronto (UofT) libraries as a case study. The experimental approach entails carrying out small-scale, effective, quick, and reversible experiments to increase awareness, reduce risks with adoption of incorrect, ineffective, or full-scale adoption; increase flexibility in adopting new technologies in the rapidly evolving AI industry; and increase open-mindedness to consider diverse perspectives even though they go against one’s held perceptions, and develop dynamic capabilities to innovate. To fully realize the revolutionary potential of AI technologies in libraries, it is crucial to adopt new technologies strategically, driven by experimentation, collaboration, and knowledge sharing. Design/methodology/approach Mixed-model research involving case study of UofT libraries and the author’s professional experiences in digitally transforming libraries is used to answer the research question. AI is an emerging area and hence its applications in libraries. Leveraging the author’s professional and research expertise, the findings from the case study are enriched, offering broader perspectives and more nuanced implications. Findings Libraries can recognize emerging opportunities, adapt to the shifting AI landscape, and effectively exploit AI technologies because of the development of dynamic capabilities and a focus on innovation. The UofT instance sheds light on the experimental strategy and acts as a lens to comprehend how to strategically think about the complete AI spectrum rather than keeping an eye on a few technologies that otherwise might just be overhyped in media outlets. A mix of centralization and decentralization of AI technology adoption experimentation is evident at UOT, where any librarian is free to test out a new tool and share their findings with their peers in the expectation that other libraries will embrace it as well. The reverse scenario is also conceivable (top management to individual libraries). UofT’s culture fosters collaboration and knowledge-sharing among librarians, promoting experimentation and innovation. Cocreation with patrons, including student entrepreneurs, enhances dynamic capabilities and informs rational adoption decisions. Looking at the results, some future research directions emerge that could strengthen the library’s focus on AI. The future research directions indicate the need for further investigation into experiment design, particularly focusing on experimentation policies, monitoring and evaluation of experimentation activities, and fostering greater collaboration with patrons. Additionally, exploring AI adoption factors at both organizational and individual levels is essential to create a supportive environment for these experiments. Conducting continuous AI experiments enables librarians to critically assess AI technologies by leveraging their experiences with various applications, allowing them to distinguish practical solutions from market hype and concentrate on options that truly enhance their library operations. Practical implications The article contributes to the knowledge of strategic AI technology adoption and the role of experimentation in libraries’ adoption of AI technologies. This paper offers practical guidance for libraries of all sizes and resource levels seeking to experiment with AI technologies. It encourages the creation of a collaborative environment where patrons and peers can come together to experiment and share knowledge. Additionally, it encourages libraries to explore various research directions—such as defining experimentation policies, integrating monitoring and evaluation (M&E) to assess the effectiveness of experiments, fostering collaboration, and leveraging AI adoption factors—to cultivate a culture of experimentation. This approach aims to increase the number of experiments and, consequently, the adoption of valuable AI technologies. Originality/value AI in libraries is rapidly evolving, but current literature remains underdeveloped and lacks comprehensive adoption frameworks. Investigating individual libraries’ AI practices and sharing these insights will enable collaborative learning, helping them improve overall adoption process, fostering further innovation with emerging technologies, and helping in development of a theoretical foundation or maturity of AI domain. The research outcomes hold significant value for a wide range of libraries, from those hesitant to adopt AI due to ethical concerns to those actively experimenting with AI technologies. The article uniquely recommends further research at the intersection of library AI-driven digital transformations, cocreation, monitoring and evaluation (M&E), adoption models, and AI experimentation policies that ethically balances library innovation focus and data privacies.

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)0,001
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: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,555
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
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 savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
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 Opus0,073
Tête enseignante GPT0,384
Écart entre enseignants0,311 · 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