A Mixed Methods Approach to Assessing Roaming Reference Services
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract
 
 Objective – The objectives of this research are threefold: a) to assess the students’ perception of the roaming service at the point of service; b) to assess the librarians’ perception of the service; and, c) to solicit librarian feedback and observations on their roaming experience and perceived user reactions. Ultimately, this data was used to inform and identify best practices for the improvement of the roaming service.
 
 Methods – A combination of quantitative and qualitative survey methodologies were used to collect data regarding patron and librarian service perceptions. Patrons and librarians were asked to complete a survey at the conclusion of each reference transaction. In addition at the end of the first semester of the implementation, librarians were asked to provide feedback on the overall program by responding to five open-ended questions.
 
 Results – The findings indicate that our students typically seek assistance from the librarians once a term (58%), but the majority (71%) indicated that they would seek a librarian’s assistance more frequently, if one were available on the various floors of the library. Overall, our users indicated that they were “Satisfied” (36%) to “Very Satisfied” (43%) with the roaming service. Librarian responses indicate overall enthusiasm and positive feelings about the program, but cautioned that additional enhancements are needed to ensure the continued development and effectiveness of the service. 
 
 Conclusion – Overall, patrons were satisfied with the service delivered by the roaming reference librarian. The roaming librarians also provided positive feedback regarding the delivery of service. Data collected from both groups is also in agreement on two major program aspects needing improvement: marketing of the service and a means by which to easily identify the roaming librarian.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.806 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it