MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334259754 · doi:10.1300/j111v45n01_07

E-mail Reference in a Distributed Learning Environment

2006· article· en· W2334259754 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Library Administration · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb and Library Services
Canadian institutionsRoyal Roads University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital referenceComputer scienceProtocol (science)Service (business)Point (geometry)World Wide WebKnowledge managementSet (abstract data type)BusinessMedicineMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Royal Roads University (RRU) Library uses e-mail reference as its primary point of contact for reference services. Learners working off-site are encouraged to request reference help at a central e-mail address which routes questions to librarians. Questions are monitored cooperatively and answered via an informal protocol. RRU prides itself on excellent client service and the librarians endeavor to be responsive and helpful. Recent staff turnover and a need to orient new librarians led to the development of a set of best practices for e-mail reference. This paper examines the role of e-mail reference in the continuum of digital reference services and discusses best practices together with staff training and development issues that are particular to the conduct of e-mail reference in a distributed learning environment. To measure the success of this model, learners were surveyed for their satisfaction with responses to questions and for their preferred mode of contact.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.188 · 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