MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1595405292 · doi:10.18438/b87p4b

The majority of library clients still use person-to-person interaction when asking reference questions

2006· article· en· W1595405292 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Suzanne Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReference deskDigital referenceDeskService (business)Library sciencePsychologyMedical educationComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A review of: De Groote, Sandra L. “Questions Asked at the Virtual and Physical Health Sciences Reference Desk: How Do They Compare and What Do They Tell Us?” Medical Reference Services Quarterly 24.2 (Summer 2005): 11-23. Objective – To identify similarities and differences in the questions asked at the virtual and physical reference desks of a health sciences library, in order to better understand user needs and highlight areas for service improvement. Also to retrospectively analyze reference statistics collected over the previous six years. Design – Use study; retrospective study of reference statistics for the period July 1997 to June 2003; literature review. Setting – Large academic health sciences library in the United States. Subjects – All questions asked at the reference and information desks, plus questions submitted to the University-wide virtual reference service and answered by a health sciences librarian, over a period of one month. The questions were asked by faculty, staff, students and members of the public. Methods – A literature review was carried out to examine the types of information/reference questions typically asked in health sciences libraries both before and after the mass introduction of remote end-user searching of online resources and the establishment of virtual reference services. Next, the reference statistics collected at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) Library of the Health Sciences between July 1997 and June 2003 were examined. For most of this period a digital reference service was offered using a listserv address to which patrons would submit email queries. Beginning in March 2003, a formal virtual reference service (chat and email) was provided using commercial software. Finally, data was gathered on questions answered by a health sciences librarian, and clients who asked the questions, at either the physical or virtual reference desk, during the month of November 2003 at the UIC Library of the Health Sciences. Library staff completed an online survey form for each question, and if a client asked more than one question, each question was coded individually. Data included: status of client using the service (faculty/staff, undergraduate student, graduate student, non-UIC, unknown); mode of submission (email, chat, phone, in person); and type of question asked (directional, ready reference, in-depth/mediated, instructional, technical, accounts/status and other). In subsequent analysis, the original seven types of questions were further broken down into 19 categories. Main results – It was not possible to undertake a meta-analysis or systematic review of the studies identified in the literature review because of differences in time frames, settings and the categories used to code reference questions. However the following trends emerged: directional questions accounted for between 30 and 35% of questions asked at both physical and virtual reference desks; the remainder of questions were generally about known item searches, library policies and services, research, database use and quick reference. The statistics collected at UIC Library of the Health Sciences over the period July 1997 to June 2003 were analyzed. Coded reference questions fell into one of four categories: ready reference, in-depth reference, mediated searches and digital reference. There was a noticeable drop in the number of reference questions received in 1999/2000 which reflects trends reported in some of the studies identified in the literature review. The number of mediated searches decreased from 154 in 1997/98 to 4 in 2002/2003, but the number of digital reference questions increased from 0 to 508 in the same period. Statistics were collected over the month of November 2003 for 939 questions asked at the reference and information desks which included: 38 e-mail; 48 chat; 156 phone; and 697 in person. The major findings were as follows: • approximately 55% of questions were reference questions (33.5% ready reference, 9.7% in-depth/mediated, 9.7% instructional); 30% were directional; and 10% were technical; it is not stated what the remaining 5% of questions were; • library clients who asked the questions comprised graduate students (26%), faculty (24%), undergraduate students (24%) and non-UIC patrons (22%); • all groups of clients were most likely to ask their reference questions in person; • graduate students were the largest users of email reference (34%), undergraduates were the largest group to use chat (35%) and faculty/staff were the largest group to use the telephone (39%); • 28% of the questions were answered from library’s staff’s general knowledge of the library; 22% using the online catalogue or electronic journal list; 22% by referring the patron to, or using, an online database or resource; 13% by referring the patron to another department in the library (such as circulation); 7% by consulting another individual; and 5% by using print resources. Conclusion – The results of the three parts of this study – literature review, study of 1997-2003 statistics, and in-depth collection of statistics for November 2003 – are difficult to compare with each other. However, the general trend emerging from the results is that some kinds of questions asked by health sciences library clients have remained very much the same regardless of the rise of remote end-user searching and the mode of transmission of the questions. These include questions about library policies and services, journal and book holdings, database searching and instructional support. Questions about citation verification and consumer health appear to be decreasing while technical questions and questions about accessing remote databases and online journals are increasing. The majority of reference questions are still asked in person.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.108
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.108
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.013

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.300 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207