Library Trends 21 (2) 1972: Standards for Libraries
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
be measured and assessed.They are determined by professional librarians in order to attain and maintain the objectives they have set themselves.Standards may be interpreted variously as the pattern of an ideal, a model procedure, a measure for appraisal, a stimulus for future development and improvement and as an instrument to assist decision and action not only by librarians themselves but by laymen concerned indirectly with the institution, planning, and administration of . . .library services."2It would be difficult to find a more fitting definition.The value of such standards has sometimes been questioned by administrators who hate to be reminded of the obligation to improve libraries under their supervision, and by "sophisticated" members of the library profession.Against these critics the wise words of two outstanding leaders of our profession are cited.The late Joseph L. Wheeler observed: "National standards, set forth to contrast with local performance, and adequately publicized, have doubtless done more-more promptly than any other device-to help good administrators improve conditions in public librarie~."~Robert B. Downs tries to calm the fears of some of his peers who believe minimum standards for university libraries might be regarded by administrators as maximum standards: "The same criticism could be made, of course, of public, college, and other library standards.There can be little doubt, however, that the overall effect of standards has been to upgrade libraries, providing substandard institutions with yardsticks by which to measure their defi-~iencies."~Downs's last sentence sums up, in a way, the observations this writer made during the six years he served as chairman of the ACRL Committee on Standards.Sketched here are a few of the lessons he learned working on the "ALA Standards for College Libraries" (1959) and the "ALA Standards for Junior College Libraries" (1960).He was fortunate in having on his committee several fellow librarians who were intimately familiar with the nationwide situation.They knew the pressing problems of the academic libraries and had the statistical evidence at their fingertips.But, above all, this committee had a vision of what progress could and should be attained in the next decade.This position was fortified by securing advice from many leaders of the library profession, from notable academic administrators and from accrediting agencies.The aim was to establish clearly the role of the librarian as an educator-a highly qualified professional who was entitled to faculty status.Committee formulations never distinguished between libraries in liberal arts colleges, teachers colleges, and institutes L m u m TRENDS [ 1601 College 6.
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 | 0,010 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,017 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,010 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,064 | 0,083 |
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 ».