Working Together: Joint-Use Canadian Academic and Public Libraries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research purpose was to learn about existing joint use public-academic libraries in Canada including their establishment, structure, benefits, and challenges and to determine the requirements for successful partnerships. Following a literature review, a short survey was conducted to gather data on the number, location, and types of public-academic library partnerships. In-depth telephone interviews were then held with key personnel from joint use libraries to learn more about the libraries and the nature of the partnerships. The research surfaced three unique examples of joint use public-academic libraries. In addition, key requirements for successful partnerships that were posited through the literature review were supported by the research data – commitment, a shared vision, and a need that requires fulfillment. Possible limitations of the research are the initial survey’s reliance on responses from academic library directors and the survey timing. There is limited information about partnerships between Canadian public and academic libraries and no single document that brings together data on partnerships across Canada. With this study, public and academic libraries will learn of successful joint use Canadian public-academic libraries along with the key requirements for sustainable partnerships.
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 | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".