Going mobile: creating a mobile presence for your library
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to determine how students at the University of Regina would like to interact with the library on their mobile devices and how to best construct a mobile site to suit the university community's needs. Design/methodology/approach A survey was designed to gather feedback from the university community on their use of mobile devices and how they would want to use the library's resources and services via their mobile device. This survey also attempts to better understand how academic libraries can provide effective mobile services. A questionnaire was developed and distributed to several Canadian academic libraries. Its purpose was to discover what other institutions were doing with mobile technologies. Findings The survey found that 95.4 percent of students that responded to the survey had a smartphone and 75 percent of them used their mobile phone to access the web. The survey indicated that the library catalogue was the most popular resource chosen to become mobile enabled. The questionnaire distributed to other Canadian academic libraries showed that some libraries were designing and building web apps, while others were creating native apps. Originality/value With the increase of mobile technology availability and the demand for accessible mobile content, it is imperative that libraries examine how they can provide services to their patrons within this medium in order to continue to provide valuable services. Mobile technologies are constantly changing, so continuous assessment in this area is of importance.
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 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 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it