The Eleventh Off-Campus Library Services Conference Proceedings (review)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: The Eleventh Off-Campus Library Services Conference Proceedings Nancy J. Burich The Eleventh Off-Campus Library Services Conference Proceedings, ed. Patrick B. Mahoney. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Information Press, 2004. 574p. $49.95 (ISBN 0-7890-2785-2) Co-published simultaneously as Journal of Library Administration 41, no. 1/2 and 3/4, 2004 This collection of papers represents research that was presented at the Eleventh Off-Campus Library Services Conference in Scottsdale, Arizona in 2004. Though other conferences are offered on various aspects of distance learning, including teaching, the use of new technologies, and digital resources, this conference concentrates on topics of interest to librarians who are providing services to nontraditional faculty and students who do not have access to a traditional academic library. The conference, sponsored by Central Michigan University, has a British counterpart in the Libraries Without Walls Conference hosted by Manchester Metropolitan University. The conference program advisory board employs a juried abstracts process to review the papers submitted for consideration. Researchers who presented at the conference are well known in the field and come from institutions across the United States, Canada, and the West Indies. Several contributors discuss various forms of collaboration to enhance distance information services. Especially relevant is the article by Robin Lockerby et al. that describes working with faculty who are remote from campus. The paper by Anne Marie Casey et al. describes the collaboration between a librarian, a faculty member, and a technician to develop a Web-based research readiness assessment tool. Another theme of the papers addresses the importance of needs assessment, especially in serving various types of students (for example, non-affiliated, the disabled, Native American, and those enrolled in off-campus programs). These papers describe the obstacles faced by various groups of students and suggest solutions that may serve as models for others to follow. Two articles focus on questionnaire design. The first is by Lynn M. McMain and Judy Ann Jerabek, and the second is by Evadne McLean and Stephen H. Dew. This is a subject of great importance to librarians who may have a limited knowledge about developing effective assessment tools. Various administrative issues, including strategic planning, marketing, and institutional issues are the topics of several papers. Marianne A. Buehler's article about inserting the library into course management software is especially important for distance learners because such a link may provide the only a gateway to library services and collections for these users. [End Page 109] Articles about student support services provide practical approaches to the services that are important to distant learners: electronic books, electronic reserves, document delivery, instruction, and virtual reference or chat. Naturally, these same articles describe how technologies (especially CD-ROM, Web, multimedia, and videoconferencing) are used to provide services and to raise awareness of their availability. For example, Tina Adams talks about educating educators to the importance of library services and resources for their distance learning students. This is a very useful publication for anyone interested in innovative solutions to current problems in distance learning library services. The contributors' index provides a list of active researchers for others who may be seeking research partners. The index provides a list of topics and the institutions where the research was undertaken. The exclusion of Siva Vaidhyanathan's keynote address, "Copyright as an Instrument of Censorship," is regretted. It would have been a valuable addition to the proceedings because of widespread interest in copyright issues across the academy. An excellent complement for locating related current and historical research is Alexander L. Slade's standard work, Library Services for Distance Learning: The Fourth Bibliography, http://uviclib.uvic.ca/dls/bibliography4.html. Nancy J. Burich University of Kansas Copyright © 2006 The Johns Hopkins University Press
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.020 |
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".