MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151197517 · doi:10.1086/660134

What Do Young Teens Think about the Public Library?

2011· article· en· W2151197517 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Library Quarterly · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupQualitative researchPublic relationsQualitative propertyWeb siteWeb surveyLibrary sciencePsychologySociologyPolitical scienceThe InternetWorld Wide WebBusinessMarketingSocial scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports on a research study investigating the attitude of twelve- to fifteen-year-old residents of an Eastern Canadian regional municipality to the public library. Phase 1, a quantitative survey, analyzes overall satisfaction ratings and frequency of use of the public library. Phase 2 uses qualitative methodology (focus groups) to illuminate and enrich the findings from the initial survey research. This study concludes that although most young teens in this regional municipality have a positive overall impression of the public library, they are not frequent public library users. In particular, teens highlighted the lack of relationships with library staff, appealing facilities, an appealing teen library Web site, and teen involvement and participation as key barriers to library use.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.038
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.217 · 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