MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288352437

Measuring What Matters: Organisational Effectiveness by the Numbers in One Canadian Public Library

2002· article· en· W2288352437 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Don Harper Mills

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresentation (obstetrics)Service (business)Library managementKey (lock)Process (computing)BusinessQuality (philosophy)Performance indicatorPerformance measurementProcess managementComputer scienceKnowledge managementOperations managementMarketingEngineeringLibrary scienceMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The presentation will concentrate on a decade of using statistics and measurement methods to manage a large urban public library (serving 650,000 with 16 locations) in a period of rapid growth and development of its services. The Mississauga Library System doubled in ten years and yet successfully met all the challenges of growth to remain the top rated local service. Through a formal management process composed of several key activities including performance management, strategic management, organisational health, and value management, the Library identified key statistics and key quality as well as quantity performance indicators and sought to affect those positively through changes in inputs and outputs in key areas of service expansion, innovation, continuous improvement, and efficiencies. The presentation will review the components of the Library’s formal management process and the measurement methods used as well as a multi-year approach including major service plans and their multi-year budgets. Examples of the statistics collected, the methodologies used, and performance indicators devised for each part of the process will be examined along with the Library’s evolving vision for and definition of ultimate “success” – superior service at a reasonable cost. As well, the key Canadian library statistics – public as well as other – will be reviewed as the background to one large public library’s pursuit of effectiveness. The issues of the Canadian library scene will be covered along with current national practices and the unmet measurement needs today.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.043
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyFrench-language works237,207