A comparison of academic libraries: an analysis using a self‐organizing map
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to analyze the relationship among measures of resource and service usage and other features of academic libraries in the USA and Canada. Design/methodology/approach Through the use of a self‐organizing map, academic library data were clustered and visualized. Analysis of the library data was conducted through the computation of a “library performance metric” that was applied to the resulting map. Findings Two areas of high‐performing academic libraries emerged on the map. One area included libraries with large numbers of resources, while another area included libraries that had low resources but gave greater numbers of presentations to groups, offered greater numbers of public service hours, and had greater numbers of staffed service points. Research limitations/implications The metrics chosen as a measure of library performance offer only a partial picture of how libraries are being used. Future research might involve the use of a self‐organizing map to cluster library data within certain parameters and the identification of high‐performing libraries within these clusters. Practical implications This study suggests that libraries can improve their performance not only by acquiring greater resources but also by putting greater emphasis on the services that they provide to their users. Originality/value This paper demonstrates how a self‐organizing map can be used in the analysis of large data sets to facilitate library comparisons.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, 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".