MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983120495 · doi:10.1300/j118v18n02_08

Reference Librarians' Attitudes Towards the World Wide Web

2000· article· en· W1983120495 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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Library Quarterly · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb and Library Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublicityWorld Wide WebWork (physics)Face (sociological concept)Web accessibilityWeb Accessibility InitiativeWeb standardsWeb applicationPublic relationsPolitical scienceSociologyLibrary scienceWeb developmentComputer scienceWeb intelligenceBusinessThe InternetEngineeringMarketingSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The rapid growth and widespread publicity about the World Wide Web has many implications for public reference librarians, but little is known about this group's attitudes towards the World Wide Web and the impact of the Web on reference work. Using face-to-face interviews, this study gathered data on the attitudes of reference librarians working within a large British Columbia public library consortium, focusing on how these information professionals feel about integrating the Web into their duties. The responses indicate that the librarians believe the Web has had a positive effect on their work with regard to efficiency and answer rates, but they still have serious concerns about accuracy of Web information, technical problems, and demands on them for customer training.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.025
Open science0.0050.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.191 · 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