MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1501436028 · doi:10.18438/b8059w

Undergraduate and postgraduate students in a North American University are choosing to use chat reference services for all kinds of reasons

2006· article· en· W1501436028 on OpenAlex
Gill Needham

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb and Library Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsService (business)Medical educationPsychologyGraduate studentsThe InternetOnline chatClosing (real estate)Computer scienceWorld Wide WebMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A review of:
 
 Ward, David. “Why Users Choose Chat: A Survey of Behavior and Motivations.” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 10.1 (2005): 29-46.
 
 Objective – To investigate reasons why undergraduate and postgraduate students choose to use chat reference services and their satisfaction with the experience.
 
 Design – User survey.
 
 Setting – Large academic library in the United States.
 
 Subjects – A total of 341 library users took part in the survey. Of these, 79 were graduate students, 215 undergraduates, 21 staff, 5 alumni and 21 members of the public.
 
 Method – A user survey form was posted on the library website for a period of one month (March 2003). Users of the chat reference service received an automatic closing message asking them to complete the survey. Responses were fed into a database to be analysed by the research staff. Additional data was also gathered about the behaviour of all users of the chat service during that period – both responders and non-responders.
 
 Main results – The most popular reason for choosing to use a chat service was the desire for a speedy response, followed by ‘distance from the library’. Responders chose to use chat to ask a range of different kinds of questions. Nearly half (45%) were looking for a specific resource and 23% were seeking help at the beginning of their research. There were notable differences between undergraduate and graduate students. Twice as many undergraduates as graduates used the service to help them get started on their research. Graduates were three times as likely as undergraduates to be using the service to address technical problems they were having with the website. Overall satisfaction with the service was extremely high, with 77.5% rating it 5 out of 5 and 94.5% giving it 4 or 5 out of 5. 
 
 Conclusion – Chat reference services are popular with users primarily because they are quick and convenient. However, users expect that these services will be able to deal with all types of questions, including help with research. This challenges an assumption by library staff that the medium is only suitable for short factual enquiries and general questions about library services. It is suggested that a detailed analysis of the chat transcripts from this period could provide a valuable addendum to the survey results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.183
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.229 · 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