Reference and Information Services in the 21st Century: An Introduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cassell, Kay Ann and Uma Hiremath. Reference and Information Services in the 21st Century: An Introduction. 2nd Edition. New York, NY: Neal-Schuman Publishers, 2009. xvii, 461 pp. 69.95 USD. ISBN-13: 978-1-55570-672-2. ∞Cassell and Hiremath have produced a very well written, well researched introduction to reference and information services. This second edition is approximately 80 pages longer than the first edition (2006) and it deals with a number of technological changes in libraries in the last three years, notably the increasing prominence of Google and the enormous digitization projects that are now under way around the world.The book is divided into four main sections: Fundamental Concepts, in which the authors discuss the theory and practice of reference and information service; Introduction to Major Reference Works, in which they discuss categories of reference sources; Special Topics, which includes detailed information about reference sources in different subject areas or subject disciplines, and Developing and Managing Reference Collections and Services, in which the authors deal with issues such as collection development, evaluating reference sources, managing reference departments, assessing the quality and adequacy of reference services, and includes the authors' reflections on the likely technological and social implications of reference services in the decades to come. They discuss topics such as Web 2.0, social networking, RSS feeds, and Virtual Reference and note (p. 390) that although these technological developments are in a state of constant change, it is possible to find patterns that make 2.0 such an attractive addition to the traditional reference arsenal.It is particularly gratifying to see that the authors regularly refer to Canadian and British reference sources and institutions, rather than restricting themselves to those from the United States. There are also frequent references to the information services that are provided by sister institutions, reminding the reader that even though reference and information services may be provided at one institution, they may draw on the expertise and resources of many.The authors deal with the ethical issues that reference librarians sometimes face. They provide a good discussion of the reference interview process and some of the pitfalls that librarians encounter, and they remind librarians that they may frequently be called upon to provide reference service in disciplines where they have no professional expertise, and that they should always be aware of this as they assist library users.Occasionally, the authors trap themselves with of terms or concepts. By stating that ... share one major characteristic: they provide definitions (p. 125), the authors would appear to eliminate resources such as picture dictionaries, dictionaries of dates, or biographical dictionaries. It would be more helpful to recognize that the term is applied very widely, to many types of information resources, and to deal with the different categories of reference sources that include the word in the title, or are organized in a dictionary format. Many subject areas or disciplines, such as literature, music, political science and the social sciences, deal with complex terms or concepts that are arguably more than simply words that must be defined. …
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.013 |
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.
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".