MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094785596 · doi:10.1080/19322909.2010.500596

Corralling Web 2.0: Building an Intranet That Enables Individuals

2010· article· en· W2094785596 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Web Librarianship · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb and Library Services
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntranetWorld Wide WebUsabilityComputer scienceWorkflowSocial mediaThe InternetDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The days of top-down communication and controlled internal messages at a library organization are—or should be—behind us. Modern libraries must be fluid and flexible organizations with equally nimble internal communication infrastructures in place to keep up with the fast-paced environments that have been created in these organizations. As is the case at many institutions, McMaster University Library (about 100 employees) put a great deal of effort into public-facing resources and content, while the library intranet languished as an afterthought. Static Web pages were haphazardly created and linked to from the site's index page. As the site grew, the lack of global navigation, search functionality, and clarity about content ownership led to a large, confusing collection of pages that was increasingly difficult to maintain. In 2009, a project was undertaken to redesign the staff intranet and implement Drupal, an open-source content management system, to power the new site. This case study outlines the issues faced with the former intranet, requirements gathering, staff feedback, and usability tests performed to inform the redesign, site architecture, and Drupal modules implemented, features and benefits of the redesigned intranet, the use of the new intranet to corral existing Web 2.0/social media channels, governance, evaluation, and lessons learned from the project. Future phases of the project will focus on integrating other internal communication tools used by staff in their day-to-day work, including internal file-sharing drives, staff e-mail and instant messaging platforms, meeting scheduling software, and external document sharing tools such as Google Docs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.012
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.213 · 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