Public Libraries Could Better Serve Older Adults by Having More Programming Specifically Directed Toward Them
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Review of: Bennett-Kapusniak, R. (2013). Older Adults and the Public Library: The Impact of the Boomer Generation. Public Library Quarterly, 32(3), 204-222. doi: 10.1080/01616846.2013.818814 Abstract Objective – To determine whether programming at public libraries in the United States is aimed at older adults, and whether the programs help older adults maintain their health and well-being. Design – Web site evaluation. Setting – Public libraries in the United States of America. Subjects – The main library of each public library system located in the capital city of each of the 50 states in the United States of America. Methods – A scan of each of the web sites of the selected public library branches was performed by the author, to determine the number of programs specifically directed towards older adults. Main Results – The scan of sites indicated that there was very little programming specifically aimed at older adults and their needs. Mainly, offerings for older adults took the form of mixing in with adults of all ages. Computer technology class offerings were particularly lacking. The majority of libraries had programs to teach how to access library resources and electronic media (although not necessarily aimed at older adults), programs for those who are less mobile, as well as some adaptive technology for those with sensory disabilities. In addition, the majority of libraries had adult literacy programs, and active collaboration with community organizations. Conclusions – Public libraries can do more to develop programs specifically for older adults. They should take into account the wide diversity of older adults’ information and other needs. In particular, they should consider offering programs that focus on technological skills, and also should offer assistive technology for older patrons. There also needs to be more research on the needs of older adults, from the perspective of the patrons themselves and that of library staff.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.012 |
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".