Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Review of: Boateng, F., & Liu, Y. Q. (2014). Web 2.0 applications’ usage and trends in top US academic libraries. Library Hi Tech, 32(1), 120-138. doi:10.1108/LHT-07-2013-0093 Abstract Objective – To explore Web 2.0 application use in academic libraries through determining: Web 2.0 applications used, the purpose of using these applications, and how the use of Web 2.0 is changing. Design – Exploratory survey of academic library websites using content analysis of websites, blogs, and social networking service platforms. Setting – Websites of academic libraries in the United States, blog platforms, and social networking services. Subjects – 100 academic libraries. Methods – The researchers based their selection of academic library websites on the US News & World Report’s 2013 list of the top 100 best colleges in the United States. The authors created a checklist to determine which Web 2.0 technologies were used by the academic libraries on their websites and for what purposes. The researchers searched for Web 2.0 applications on the main page and one subpage down from the main page. The researchers also used keyword searches on the library’s website to find Web 2.0 applications and searched blog platforms and social networking sites. Main Results – The authors found that Facebook and Twitter were the most popular Web 2.0 applications and that all of the libraries analyzed used social networking services. Blogs were the second most popular Web 2.0 tool at 99% participation rate, followed closely by RSS (97%) and instant messaging (91%). Libraries used these Web 2.0 tools for information sharing including: outreach, promotion, providing online reference services, subject guides, tutorials, highlighting resources, and posting announcements. Conclusion – The academic libraries analyzed in this study use Web 2.0 applications to a much greater extent than previous research had shown. The researchers expect to see increased use of Web 2.0 applications by academic libraries in the coming years. They suggest that future research focus on Web 2.0 use by historically black colleges in the United States and on collaboration between academic libraries and other academic units when offering Web 2.0 services.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Scholarly communication Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| gpt | Scholarly communication Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.594 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".