An Evidence Based Methodology to Facilitate Public Library Non-fiction Collection Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective – This research was designed as a pilot study to test a methodology for subject based collection analysis for public libraries. Methods – WorldCat collection data from eight Australian public libraries was extracted using the Collection Evaluation application. The data was aggregated and filtered to assess how the sample’s titles could be compared against the OCLC Conspectus subject categories. A hierarchy of emphasis emerged and this was divided into tiers ranging from 1% of the sample. These tiers were further analysed to quantify their representativeness against both the sample’s titles and the subject categories taken as a whole. The interpretive aspect of the study sought to understand the types of knowledge embedded in the tiers and was underpinned by hermeneutic phenomenology. Results – The study revealed that there was a marked tendency for a small percentage of subject categories to constitute a large proportion of the potential topicality that might have been represented in these types of collections. The study also found that distribution of the aggregated collection conformed to a Power Law distribution (80/20) so that approximately 80% of the collection was represented by 20% of the subject categories. The study also found that there were significant commonalities in the types of subject categories that were found in the designated tiers and that it may be possible to develop ontologies that correspond to the collection tiers. Conclusions – The evidence-based methodology developed in this pilot study has the potential for further development to help to improve the practice of collection development. The introduction of the concept of the epistemic role played by collection tiers is a promising aid to inform our understanding of knowledge organization for public libraries. The research shows a way forward to help to link subjective decision making with a scientifically based approach to managing knowledge resources.
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 | 0.206 | 0.312 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".