Seeing Double at Memorial University: Two WorldCat Local Usability Studies
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
Obtaining user feedback is valuable yet often overlooked, so when Memorial University Libraries launched OCLC’s WorldCat Local discovery tool for Fall 2010, usability testing was a logical next step. Two branches, each with distinct user groups, the Ferriss Hodgett Library in Corner Brook, and the Health Sciences Library in St. John’s, conducted unique usability studies to gain evidence into how WorldCat Local performed common research tasks. The Health Sciences Library was inspired by the information seeking habits of Memorial University’s Faculty of Medicine, School of Nursing, and School of Pharmacy. This demographic’s heavy reliance on journal literature, and known item searching made these users an interesting test group. The Ferriss Hodgett Library, serving an undergraduate Liberal Arts and Sciences population, was interested in the information seeking behavior of new students with little to no experience using library resources. At the local level, evidence obtained as a result of this usability testing will provide guidance into future use of WCL at Memorial University Libraries. On a broader scale, the usability findings are relevant to any library considering the shift to a new discovery tool.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.119 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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