The Impact and Effect of Learning 2.0 Programs in Australian Public Libraries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective – With adoption of the program world-wide, the Learning 2.0 model has been lauded by library professionals as a mechanism to educate library staff and transform libraries. This study, part of the 2009 CAVAL Visiting Scholar project, seeks to measure the impact and legacy of the model within Australian public libraries to understand what benefits, changes and effects occur. Methods – A national Web-based survey for those who had participated in a learning 2.0 program. Results – The national survey had 384 respondents, and a total of 64 respondents were identified as the public library staff data set for this article. Public library staff reported success in the program and described feelings of increased confidence, inclusivity, and a move to use emerging technologies as part of library service. Conclusion – The analysis yields the following thematic areas of impact and effect: personal practice is enhanced with knowledge and confidence; impact is mainly personal, but organisational changes may follow; the library is using the tools to varying degrees of success, and organizational blocks prevent use of tools. These finding offer evidence that Learning 2.0 programs can have a positive effect on library staff and subsequently on the organization itself.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".