MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982192256 · doi:10.1080/01616846.2014.970431

“I’m a Library Hugger!”: Public Libraries as Valued Community Assets

2014· article· en· W1982192256 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Library Quarterly · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValue (mathematics)Public relationsSocial capitalDemocracyPublic valueLibrary classificationPerceptionLibrary sciencePolitical scienceSociologySocial sciencePoliticsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public library value is often ascertained by outlining the economic, social, and cultural benefits public libraries generate for the greater community. While researchers have focused on the concepts of social capital, civic engagement, and the role of libraries in promoting democracy, fewer studies have explored the public’s perceptions of libraries in an effort to determine library value. Furthermore, library nonusers are rarely included in these studies. In Alberta, Canada, 1,201 Albertans from across the province, including both urban and rural areas, were asked a series of questions about their perceptions of public libraries and library use. Findings reveal characteristics of library users and nonusers, what services and resources are used most often at public libraries, what value the public places on public libraries, and the role that libraries play in supporting communities.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0090.068
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it