MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098362393 · doi:10.1179/lib.2004.20.3.223

Early British Public Library Annual Reports: Then and Now Part I

2004· article· en· W2098362393 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

VenueLibrary History · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe artsLibrary scienceRecreationInstitutionSociologyPolitical sciencePublic relationsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Of the 566 library authorities functioning in Britain and Ireland by 1918, most seem to have published annual reports on their progress, at least at some point following their establishment. So far as they survive and can be traced, these documents, though varying greatly in length, commonly contain a narrative or textual commentary on the progress of the institutions during the report period, statistical and tabular details about the institutions such as information regarding stock, issues, and borrowers, and lists of data such as committee members, donations received and periodicals taken. Some published annual reports documenting the working of public libraries also contain data as to the progress of allied cultural institutions such as museums, art galleries, technical and adult education facilities, and parks and recreation grounds. They were often signed by the local public library committee chairman and addressed to a local council, although some were signed by a librarian or curator and addressed to the library or other committee. In both cases they were accessible to members of the public, and it seems fair to assume that the staff of the institution concerned would commonly have had a hand in their writing. Following the acquisition by the Thomas Parry Library at the University of Wales Aberystwyth of a large collection of historic public library annual reports which the Library Association was on the verge of discarding, the AHRB (Arts and Humanities Research Board) agreed to fund a fifteen-month project between April 2000 and July 2001 to examine the utility of these documents to historians of the period ca. 1850–1919. In view of the lack of thematic historical work on public library annual reports (and indeed on annual reports as a wider genre), this two-part essay will address the genesis and character of these documents from a broad perspective, and assess their impact and significance for contemporaries and for historians in a range of disciplines. After describing the evolution of the public library annual report as a genre, this first paper will discuss the nature of their use to date, and will argue that current common historiographical assumptions as to the limited utility of these documents are flawed. The second paper will assess the value and contemporary importance of the documents in the expansion of the public library movement.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.021
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.193 · 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