MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2299778370 · doi:10.18438/b88k7r

Analysis of Static and Dynamic E-Reference Content at a Multi-Campus University Shows that Updated Content is Associated with Greater Annual Usage

2016· article· en· W2299778370 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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 · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInformation retrievalContent analysisContent (measure theory)Library scienceReference dataDatabaseMathematicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Review of:
 Lamothe, A. R. (2015). Comparing usage between dynamic and static e-reference collections. Collection Building, 34(3), 78-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CB-04-2015-0006
 
 Abstract
 
 Objective – To discover whether there is a difference in use over time between dynamically updated and changing subscription e-reference titles and collections, and static purchased e-reference titles and collections. 
 
 Design – Case study.
 
 Setting – A multi-campus Canadian university with 9,200 students enrolled in both graduate and undergraduate programs.
 
 Subjects – E-reference book packages and individual e-reference titles. 
 
 Methods – The author compared data from individual e-reference books and packages. First, individual subscription e-reference books that periodically added updated content were compared to individually purchased e-reference books that remained static after purchase. The author then compared two e-reference book packages that provided new and updated content to two static e-reference book packages. The author compared data from patron usage to new content added over time using regression analysis. 
 
 Main Results – As the library acquired e-reference titles, dynamic title subscriptions added to the collection were associated with 2,246 to 4,635 views per subscription while static title additions were associated with 8 to 123 views per purchase. The author also found that there was a strong linear relationship between views and dynamic titles added to the collection (R2=0.79) and a very weak linear relationship (R2=0.18) with views when static titles are added to the collection. Regression analysis of dynamic e-reference collections revealed that the number of titles added to each collection was strongly associated with views of the material (R2=0.99), while static e-reference collections were less strongly linked (R2=0.43). 
 
 Conclusion – Dynamic e-reference titles and collections experienced increases in usage each year while static titles and collections experienced decreases in usage. This indicates that collections and titles that offer new content to users each year will continue to see growth in usage while static collections and titles will see maximum usage within a few years and then begin to decline as they get older. Fresh content is strongly associated with usage in e-reference titles, which mirrors the author’s previous work examining static and dynamic content in e-monographs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.152
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.182 · 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