MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2201169825 · doi:10.18438/b81s4h

Evaluation of an Academic Library’s Liquid Designed Website

2015· article· en· W2201169825 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb and Library Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummative assessmentUsabilityWorld Wide WebTest (biology)Computer scienceWeb usabilityInternet privacyPsychologyFormative assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective – When the Harold B. Lee Library (HBLL) at Brigham Young University released a new website with same-look capabilities for computers, tablets, and smartphones, we undertook a summative assessment to review website features and to determine baseline measures of website access via device and patron group. Methods – The study used a mixed methods approach using three levels of assessment (focus groups, an online survey, and a usability test), with each level informing the subsequent level. Results – The website changes were well-received by the overwhelming majority of patrons. Device usage was associated with the type of task for which patrons were accessing the website. Computers were used primarily for research-related tasks (e.g., accessing journals, databases, and the main search bar). Smartphones were used primarily for on-the-go tasks (e.g., accessing personal accounts, finding library hours, and reserving group study rooms). Tablets fell between these two. Several website services were identified as being underused. Study results were moderated by time of release (i.e., only half of survey participants had viewed the new website) and access to device (i.e., many patrons did not have access to a tablet or a smartphone). Conclusions – The summative assessment of the HBLL’s new website was well-received and viewed as a positive change. While most patrons were initially unaware of the same-look feature across devices, this was considered to be a positive change. As devices become more accessible for patrons, it is believed that website access by device will change. A follow-up study is planned to assess any changes in use patterns or use of access devices.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.691
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.252 · 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