The Use of Microblogs and Social Networking Services: A Comparison Between Academic Libraries of the United States and China
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
In this exploratory study, the researchers examined the use of microblogs and social networking services by academic libraries in the United States and China with data collected from library Web sites, social media accounts, and search engines. The top 100 universities from each country were included in the study, and the use of these two types of social media by the main libraries of the universities was examined over a period of about four months. The findings indicate that the adoption rates of these social media were higher among the U.S. libraries as measured by the number of libraries that had an account in each type of social media studied. However, the number of accounts for the Chinese libraries was increasing faster during the study period. In the area of microblogs, where the data from the two countries were more comparable and in-depth analysis was feasible, the U.S. libraries were found to have started using the social media earlier, but the Chinese libraries attracted more users measured by either the absolute or the relative number of followers of the libraries' microblog accounts. The Chinese microblog user base was also developing at a faster pace during the study period.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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