MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1572115582 · doi:10.18438/b86913

The Presence of Web 2.0 Applications Is Associated with the Overall Service Quality of Library Websites

2011· article· en· W1572115582 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Leslie Bussert

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb and Library Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorld Wide WebComputer scienceRanking (information retrieval)Quality (philosophy)WebometricsThe InternetCoding (social sciences)Content analysisInformation retrievalLibrary scienceMathematicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Review of: Chua, A. Y. K., & Goh, D. H. (2010). A study of Web 2.0 applications in library websites. Library & Information Science Research, 32(3), 203-211. Objective – To determine the prevalence and use of web 2.0 applications in library websites and to determine whether or not their presence enhances the quality of the sites. Design – Content analysis. Setting – Public and academic libraries in North America, Europe, and Asia. Subjects – A total of 120 academic and public library websites in English. Methods – This study identified and selected library websites from academic and public libraries using a combination of directories, ratings reports, and ranking lists from three geographic regions. Over a four-month period in 2009, three coders conducted a three-step content analysis of the selected library websites. This analysis was conducted after having established inter-coder reliability using Cohen’s Kappa and analytic procedure familiarity, using a randomly selected pilot set of 30 library websites. The remaining 90 websites were evenly distributed among the three coders for analysis. They determined whether web 2.0 applications were present, examined how those applications were used, and gave an overall appraisal of website quality. Coders inspected library website links, conducted site searches, used search engines, and searched within major social networking sites to determine the presence of web 2.0 applications. A quality framework classification scheme was used during coding to identify how the web 2.0 applications were being used within library websites. This framework was established around four dimensions of library services: information acquisition (blogs and wikis), information dissemination (Rich Site Summary, or “RSS”), information organization (social tagging), and information sharing (social networking and instant messaging). A five-point Likert scale was also used in concert with a website quality evaluation framework to assess the quality of the library websites. This framework included three aspects of website quality: system quality, information quality, and service quality. A combination of statistical techniques such as Chi-square analysis, Cramer’s V, analysis of variance, Tukey’s statistic, and multiple regression were then used to analyze the findings. Main Results – Web 2.0 applications have been adopted by libraries across North America, Europe, and Asia. The most popular web 2.0 applications were blogs (56.6%), RSS (50%), and instant messaging services (46.6%) while less prevalent were social networking services (20%), wikis (16.6%), and social tagging applications (16.6%). The extent of libraries’ adoption of web 2.0 applications also varied according to region. North American libraries used all web 2.0 applications most consistently and were more attuned to heavier users, particularly with regard to information sharing applications (e.g., instant messaging, social networking). European libraries lagged behind those in Asia in embracing information acquisition applications (e.g., blogs, wikis) but were comparable to other regions. Social networking services and instant messaging were strongly associated with region; RSS, blogs, and social tagging showed moderate to moderately strong associations; and only wikis did not demonstrate a statistically significant association with region. This study also identified how web 2.0 applications were being used. Blogs were used to generate interest, engage users, and endear users to library personnel, while wikis culled resources from users thematically. RSS feeds communicated news, events or resource updates, and were also used in combination with library blogs. Social tagging invited users to save, organize, and share information, while some websites used librarian-generated tags for search and discovery or included them as tag clouds in library blogs. Instant messaging was used to assist users synchronously during scheduled timeslots; meanwhile, social networking sites offered alternate channels to communicate and build connections with users. The authors found a relationship between website quality and the presence of web 2.0 applications based on the criteria presented in their quality evaluation framework. Applications facilitating information sharing (i.e., social networks and instant messaging) had a stronger influence on a website’s overall quality than those being used for information acquisition and dissemination (i.e., RSS, wikis, and blogs). Web 2.0 applications among academic and public libraries shared a similar level of presence on the library websites; therefore, the type of library is not associated with the quality of the library website. North American websites tended to be higher in quality than European or Asian library websites, and differences in quality between European and Asian sites were insignificant. Conclusion – This study reveals that libraries in various geographic regions adopt web 2.0 applications differently. Web 2.0 applications in library websites enhance users’ experience with library resources and support their interests. Library websites are implementing web 2.0 applications in a myriad of ways, including using these applications in concert with one another to increase user engagement. The presence of web 2.0 applications strongly affects service quality but only weakly influences information quality.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicWeb and Library ServicesFrench-language works237,207