MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1529910228 · doi:10.18438/b85p6g

Surveying North American Academic Library Websites for Instructional Outreach and Delivery Reveals a Broad Range of Approaches Employed

2014· article· en· W1529910228 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Heather Coates

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation literacyWorld Wide WebOutreachComputer scienceLibrary scienceLibrary instructionLiteracyThe InternetTerminologyMultimediaPsychologyPolitical sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Review of: Yang., S. Q., & Chou, M. (2014). Promoting and teaching information literacy on the Internet: Surveying the web sites of 264 academic libraries in North America. Journal of Web Librarianship, 8(1), 88-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2014.855586 Abstract Objective – To determine the extent to which academic libraries have used the Web to market and deliver information literacy both as a service and as a concept. Design – Survey of web content. Setting – Websites of North American academic libraries. Subjects – A random sample of 264 libraries selected from Peterson’s Four-Year Colleges. Methods – The investigators reviewed and analyzed content on academic library websites by recording the presence of various types of information. Presence was recorded for the term information literacy, tutorial content, guides and tests, and delivery of information literacy instruction. The frequencies of tutorials and guides were also reported. Main Results – Approximately 65% of the libraries used their website to promote instruction, while 30% did not mention information literacy or library instruction. A wide range of terminology was used to denote library instruction, but information literacy was not highly used. Approximately 5% of libraries had no public web presence. Research guides, tutorials, or both were provided by 64% of libraries. More than 300 tutorials in a variety of formats, including Adobe Flash videos, static web pages with little or no animations, webcasts, documents, and presentations were offered by 111 libraries. The tutorials addressed general research topics, databases, concepts and technical skills, among others. Conclusion – While the majority of academic libraries sampled have incorporated information literacy and library instruction into their web presence, it is unclear why nearly one third did not mention these activities. Further study is needed to benchmark how libraries are using the Web for instruction and outreach.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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 score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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