MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1574538289 · doi:10.18438/b8fs5m

Marketing and Assessment in Academic Libraries: A Marriage of Convenience or True Love?

2013· article· en· W1574538289 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lynne Porat

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepresentativeness heuristicPopulationQuality (philosophy)Service (business)PsychologyMarketingMedical educationFocus groupApprehensionBusinessSociologyMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective – This paper describes the process of cooperation between the Marketing and Assessment Teams at the University of Haifa in Israel, from initial apprehension about working together to the successful marketing of a suite of user studies.
 
 Methods – The first step was a formal meeting in which the leader of the assessment team explained the aims of assessment. For each assessment activity, the assessment team submitted a formal request for assistance to the marketing team, conducted team meetings on how to market each assessment, and met with the marketing team to explain the survey and receive their input on how it should be marketed. Over a 3-year period, 5 joint activities were undertaken: a 1-day, in-library use survey; a wayfinding study, in which 10 new students were filmed as they searched for 3 items in the library; 5 focus group sessions regarding upcoming library renovations; a LibQUAL+® survey measuring perceptions of service quality among the entire campus population; and an online survey of non-users of the library. The success of the assessment/marketing projects was measured by the response rates, the representativeness of the results, and the number of free-text comments with rectifiable issues.
 
 Results – Although the response rates were not very high in any of the surveys, they were very representative of the university population. With over 40% or respondents filling in free-text comments, the information received was used and applied in making service changes, including the creation and marketing of additional group study rooms, improved signage, and the launch of a “quiet” campaign. In addition, a “You said – We did” document was compiled that outlines all of the changes that were implemented since the first four surveys were conducted; this document was published on the library’s blog, Facebook page, and website.
 
 Conclusion – The number of issues that appear in the first “You said – We did” document is a testament to the close and ongoing collaboration between the two teams, from the planning stages of each survey until publication of results and notification of the changes that were implemented.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.731
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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