Using the results of a satisfaction survey to demonstrate the impact of a new library service model
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
BACKGROUND: In 2005, the University of Calgary entered into a contract to provide library services to the staff and physicians of Alberta Health Services Calgary Zone (AHS CZ), creating the Health Information Network Calgary (HINC). OBJECTIVES: A user satisfaction survey was contractually required to determine whether the new library service model created through the agreement with the University of Calgary was successful. Our additional objective was to determine whether information and resources provided through the HINC were making an impact on patient care. METHODS: A user satisfaction survey of 18 questions was created in collaboration with AHS CZ contract partners and distributed using the snowball or convenience sample method. RESULTS: Six hundred and ninety-four surveys were returned. Of respondents, 75% use the HINC library services. More importantly, 43% of respondents indicated that search results provided by library staff had a direct impact on patient care decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Alberta Health Services Calgary Zone staff are satisfied with the new service delivery model, they are taking advantage of the services offered, and using library provided information to improve patient care.
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 | 0.006 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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