MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1492547401 · doi:10.18438/b82g7v

Analyzing the MISO Data: Broader Perspectives on Library and Computing Trends

2013· article· en· W1492547401 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laurie Allen, Neal Baker, Josh Wilson, Kevin Creamer, David Consiglio

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)Point (geometry)Medical educationSurvey data collectionLibrary scienceComputer sciencePsychologyWorld Wide WebMedicineMathematicsGeographyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective – To analyze data collected by 38 colleges and universities that participated in the Measuring Information Services Outcomes (MISO) survey between 2005 and 2010. Methods – The MISO survey is a Web-based quantitative survey designed to measure how faculty, students, and staff view library and computing services in higher education. Since 2005, over 10,000 faculty, 18,000 students, and 15,000 staff have completed the survey. To date, the MISO survey team has analyzed the data by faculty age group and student cohort. Much of the data analysis has focused on changes in the use, importance, and satisfaction with services over time. Results – Analysis of the data collected during 2008-2010 reveals marked differences in how faculty and students use the library. The most frequently used services by faculty are the online library catalog (3.39 on a 5-point scale), library databases (3.34), and the library website (3.29). In contrast, the most frequently used services by students are public computers in the library (3.61) and quiet work space in the library (3.29). Faculty reported a much higher use of online resources from off campus. Analysis of data from schools where the survey was administered more than once during 2005-2010 reveals that both faculty and students increased their utilization of databases over time. All other significant faculty trends reflected declines in usage, whereas, with the exception of use of the library website, all other student trends reflected no change or increased usage. Conclusion – As the MISO survey has continued and expanded over the years, the usefulness of rich comparable data from a set of peer institutions over time has increased tremendously. In addition to providing a rich source of data, MISO can serve as a model for how a group of schools can collaborate on a share assessment tool that meets the needs of individual institutions and provides a robust, aggregated dataset for deeper analysis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0190.042
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyFrench-language works237,207