MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1521398412 · doi:10.18438/b8gp4h

Measuring the Effectiveness of Queen Elizabeth II Library Document Delivery Operations Before and After the Implementation of Relais International’s Enterprise Document Delivery Software

2007· article· en· W1521398412 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Patrick Warner

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterlibrary loanTurnaround timeOperations managementComputer scienceAccountingOperations researchDatabaseBusinessEconomicsLibrary scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective - To compare the performance of the Queen Elizabeth II Document Delivery operation before and after the implementation of Relais International’s Enterprise document delivery software. Methods - This paper employs methodology established in the Association of Research Libraries’ 1998 publication, “Measuring the Performance of Interlibrary Loan Operations” and repeated in ARL’s “Assessing ILL/DD Services: New Cost- Effective Alternatives,” published in 2004. In both studies, three measures were used to evaluate the efficiency of document delivery operations: fill rate, turnaround time and direct costs. Both studies offer ARL benchmark or mean scores for each efficiency measure. This paper compares Queen Elizabeth II Document Delivery (QEII/DD) scores for each efficiency measure with those reported in both ARL studies. Results - Data for the two periods under review, 1999-2000 and 2004-2005, indicate that Borrowing fill rates remained relatively stable, showing only a 3% drop in the latter year, while lending fill rates showed a significant increase (11%). Turnaround times for filled QEII/DD borrowing returnable requests were faster on average by 4.2 days or 24%. Turnaround times for QEII/DD non-returnable borrowing requests also show improvement: a filled non-returnable request was faster on average by 1 day or 12%. The average cost of a QEII/DD borrowing request has remained stable: $22.82 in 1999-2000 and $22.61 in 2004-2005. In contrast, the average cost of a QEII/DD lending request has increased slightly: from $11.08 in 1999-2000 to $13.12 in 2004-2005. Conclusion - Both the implementation of Relais document delivery software and the delivery of returnables (loans) by courier between consortium members have allowed the QEII/DD unit to post modest gains in both fill rates and per unit costs and more substantive gains in turnaround time.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.227 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicLibrary Collection Development and Digital ResourcesFrench-language works237,207