PREGLED ORGANIZIRANOSTI KNJIŽNIČNIH STORITEV ZA SLEPE IN SLABOVIDNE V IZBRANIH DRŽAVAH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Purpose: Models of organization of library services for the blind and partially sighted from the view of special and public librarianship in selected countries were examined. In addition, theoretical and legislative frameworks, professional guidelines and trends are explored. Some terminological inconsistencies and obstacles in performing the services are also presented. Methodology/approach: The explorative-comparative study carried in the years 2008-2010 includes the comparative analysis of data acquired by the survey and literature desktop research. The research sample included 14 countries – eleven European countries, USA, Australia, and Canada. Results: The findings show great varieties among the selected countries, however, there is the trend of moving the organization of services based on a private charitable association to the formalized state supported system. The majority of countries have applied the centralized model with one specialized (national) library. There is rarely a case of formal inclusion of public libraries in the organization of services. Recent major professional interests in the field of providing library services to visually impaired are broadening the copyright exceptions and user groups, and the implementation of information technology for bigger production of alternative formats and availability of library materials. Research limitation: The low rate of survey response and the differences in the organization of library services influenced on the lack of data and low level of data comparability. Originality/practical implications: The results are useful for designing a model of library services in Slovenia.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".