Analyzing the MISO Data: Broader Perspectives on Library and Computing Trends
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.822 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it