MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021021426

The Virtual Reference Handbook: Interview and Information Delivery Techniques for the Chat and E-Mail Environments

2007· article· en· W2021021426 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cees-Jan de Jong

Bibliographic record

VenuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital referenceComputer scienceThe InternetService (business)MultimediaReference modelSet (abstract data type)Asynchronous communicationWorld Wide WebChat roomSoftware engineeringTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kovacs, Diane K. The Virtual Reference Handbook: Interview and Information Delivery Techniques for the Chat and E-mail Environments. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, 2007. 132 p. $78 CDN. ISBN 1-55570-598-7. The Virtual Reference Handbook by Diane K. Kovacs provides a comprehensive overview of the skill set needed to provide virtual reference, as well as instruction and exercises to obtain these skills. Kovacs covers everything from keyboarding skills, to the ability to handle multiple users in a virtual reference environment, to building reference skills. This volume is better suited for those with limited exposure to reference and a low level of technological skills. Virtual reference is used often to describe librarian-patron communication via the Internet, and can include asynchronous reference (e.g. e-mail, online forms) or synchronous reference (e.g. chat or instant messaging). Other terms, such as digital reference (a more encompassing term), or chat reference may also be used in the literature to refer to virtual reference. As this type of service has seen a proliferation in libraries in the last 10-15 years, reference librarians have had to pick up a new skill set. Ronan and Turner point out in their survey results published in Chat Reference: A SPEC Kit that 69% reported that staff require additional training, primarily in the use of the specific software and chatting techniques (p. 10). Since this survey, various organizations and researchers have identified core competencies needed by virtual reference staff to provide an effective service. Luo provides a solid review of virtual reference competencies in the literature, and discusses them in the context of competencies identified through librarian interviews (2007). Competency lists allow for the development of training resources, such as Virtual Reference Training: The Complete Guide to Providing Anytime, Anywhere Answers by Hirko and Ross (2004). Also, articles have been published providing support for training in this area (Carter, 2002/03; Fagan and Desai, 2002/03; Westbrook, 2006, etc.). Kovacs covers the competencies as described in the literature, provides methods to obtain the required skills, and context through librarian interviews. The book is divided into four chapters. The first chapter discusses the reference interview, highlights differences between face-to-face, chat, and email reference, and lists the technical, communications, and reference competencies to be discussed in the next three chapters. Chapter two covers technological competencies from basic keyboarding skills to more complex issues, such as the operation of chat software, and downloading and installing browser extensions. Chapter three focuses on communication competencies and addresses basic reference communication skills, and skills that are more specific to virtual reference, such as the ability to craft responses that communicate effectively with the patron. The last chapter discusses reference competencies associated more specifically with virtual reference, but most would also be applicable to face-to-face reference. As stated at every exercise, there is an online component to the book. However, after entering the URL provided, the instructions to log in to area chatrefbook on www.kovacs.com puzzled the reviewer as there appeared to be no area called chatrefbook. The writing is characterized by an informal tone and contains typographical errors and ungrammatical sentences: Because my experience is limited to specific kinds of patrons (university students and teachers in master or doctoral degrees) there is not much room left to make assumptions and the areas is clearly defined when the patrons identify themselves but! When I am talking about making assumptions, these are about the purpose of the research that can vary from a simple homework to a thesis or a field project and my answer will differ in depth based on this action, (p. 9). …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0710.063

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and ResearchSame topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyFrench-language works237,207