Quantifying patron time-use of a public library
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – This paper summarizes a time-diary study of a Canadian public library that estimated the hours spent by patrons using library facilities and circulated collections during a month. The purpose of this paper is to convert conventional library statistics into a metric more understandable to external stakeholder groups: time. Design/methodology/approach – Paper-based time-diaries collected data on the patron use of circulated library materials throughout the loans cycle and exit surveys measured the duration of branch visits. This data along with gate and circulation statistics were used to estimate hours of patron residency in library branches and the time spent consuming borrowed materials. Findings – Patrons used the services, facilities and collections of Prince George Public Library’s Bob Harkins branch for an estimated 182,000 hours during August 2013. Over 90 per cent of use occurred offsite through the consumption of circulated materials by diarists and secondary use of borrowed items by their families and friends. Practical implications – Conventional statistics understate the utilization of public library resources as most of their use occurs outside the library branches, a different usage pattern than for other municipal services. This study suggests that all library use is potentially measurable using a single metric, hours of patron use. The value of a time metric, once methodologically sound, is its usefulness as a measure of library performance and its convertibility in dollars of direct value using contingent valuation methodology. Originality/value – Time-diary methodology collected patron time-use data on public library circulated materials. The paper demonstrates the potential of patron time-use as a metric of library performance. Hours of patron use appear convertible into dollars of benefit using contingent valuation research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".