Archival interaction: a framework to assess university archives websites from the perspective of history undergraduate students
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The goal of the research is to provide an exhaustive portrait of the usefulness of Canadian university archives websites by extending to a Canadian context similar research that was done in the United States. This exploratory research employs a two-phase approach to understanding what information is currently provided on these archival websites, what undergraduate students in history expect to find, and the barriers they face when navigating on these websites. Quantitative and qualitative data was gathered to answer four research questions: how is the Archival Reference Knowledge (ARK) framework represented on websites, what are students’ expectations regarding these websites, what barriers they face when navigating on these websites, and how is the ARK framework operationalized when considering both students’ expectations and the barriers they face.Through a review of the literature related to the study of archives users, information needs and the reference interview, information and archival literacies as well as user expertise, and information seeking, the ARK framework was identified as a conceptual model that had the best application to frame this research. The ARK framework was expanded through the addition of an instructional component to the existing collection, interaction, and research components. The proposed Archival Interaction framework has been operationalized and tested in this two-phase approach.In phase one, an iterative assessment of 81 Canadian universities archives websites (64 for English-language institutions and 17 for French-language institutions) allowed us to identify 36 markers that were used to measure the effectiveness and the efficiency of each website in relation to the four types of knowledge. In the second phase of the study, undergraduate students in history completed an online survey based on two components: the Archival Metrics standardized survey and rating questions of the markers defined in phase one. In total, there were 171 respondents from across the country: 137 participants (English) and 34 participants (French). The survey was designed to have questions related to three goals: respondents’ background and context of search, their expectations, and identifying barriers.The results of phase one show great diversity in how information is presented on the websites. Most large research-intensive institutions tend to have websites that provide more information and are structurally more complex. The analysis therefore translates to higher effectiveness and lower efficiency: the markers used for the analysis are better represented, meaning there is more information on the website, but the information tends to be difficult to access. The data by type of knowledge shows an overrepresentation of markers related to Collection Knowledge and Interaction Knowledge. In phase two, respondents mention navigation issues and lack of information as barriers to their search; specifically a lack of information related to search techniques. Respondents’ ratings of markers show a need for more research and instructional information, two types of knowledge that were rated as important as collection and interaction information.The main recommendations from this research include providing more information related to research and instruction, to complement what is already available about collections and interaction. Doing so will particularly help novice users, but also strengthen the relation with expert researchers. Defining professional archival terminology more systematically and adding links to existing resources would likely increase users’ autonomy online. These recommendations are also in line with current work on archival literacy and efforts to update existing educational standards for archival programs.
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 | 0,020 | 0,023 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,018 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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.
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 ».