Online space displacing physical space in libraries; the impact of online use on the transformation of library design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The basis of designing library spaces has been transformed. Initial views that online technologies would reduce the use of library space have not come to pass. The physical space remains important but much change has occurred. The focus has changed from an emphasis on housing of physical collections, accommodating staff and servicing users at desks, to highlighting the use of information technology in libraries and stressing user preferences for space utilisation. The pace and extent of the transformation have varied according to cultural values in various parts of the world and over time. From the east to the west, there have been significant differences. There have been varying interpretations of user behaviour and needs. Different approaches to the philosophical basis of librarianship have also affected the views of library space. Also of significance is the view of pedagogy taken in individual institutions and regions. Learner-based approaches, the increased availability of learning management systems tailored to individual use, the importance of group learning, and the growth of social networks have led to fundamental re-thinking of all spaces provided in libraries and learning institutions. The increasing use of mobile technology is causing further re-examination of space design. Common themes have developed which emphasize the need for flexibility, the importance of accommodating e-learning and m-learning, spaces for groups and areas for individual quiet study, and the emergence of self-service points, as well as those providing assistance. High tech still requires the high personal touch. The speakers will address the issues and highlight principles of library design, which should be followed, providing perspectives and examples from their Australian, Canadian, European and Turkish experience.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".