Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose In an increasingly competitive field of socially mediated information and knowledge available online, the public library's traditional services are increasingly questioned for relevancy. Drawing on the core premises of contemporary practice theory to ground the methodological and theoretical perspectives, the aim of this paper is to provide the initial “inside” view of traditional public library face‐to‐face reference work from a practice‐based perspective. Design/methodology/approach The paper includes an ethnographic case study of face‐to‐face reference service in four branches of one urban public library involving 170 hours of participant observation, 24 hours of unobtrusive observation, 480 reference interactions, and 28 participant interviews and analysis of policy documents. Findings This analysis highlights the structuring and mediating role of objects in the enactment of reference work. A practice‐based typology of reference interactions is introduced which characterizes the types of questions asked, knowledge processes in action, interpersonal communication style and mode of practice. The collective organizing actions of reference work are unpackaged in a non‐hierarchical or flattened plane that recognizes the key actors and dynamics of the practice as it endures across time and space. Originality/value Evidence and an approach are introduced to support re‐conceptualizing public library reference work as an epistemic practice.
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 | 0.025 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.099 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".