MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Library Space and Signage Kindness Audits: What Does Your User See?

2016· article· en· W2516963783 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKindnessSignageAuditSpace (punctuation)UsabilityDocumentationService (business)Library sciencePolitical scienceBusinessAdvertisingComputer scienceMarketingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an overview of how the University of Manitoba Libraries adapted the concept of a "kindness audit" to identify and document space, usability, and signage concerns and successes across all 20 system locations. The paper includes background on the development of the space experience report methods and potential methodological alternatives when they may be appropriate. Emphasis will be on practical, low-cost assessment, and the right of users to be comfortable and self-navigate in library spaces. The results of the kindness audit identified several major trends overall: use of inconsistent homemade signage, outdated signage for technology and exits, lack of sufficient electrical outlets, and inaccessibility issues at service desks. General recommendations for adapting kindness audits at other institutions are to ensure staff buy-in for the project and do prior planning. As a result of this exercise, a number of improvements have already taken place at the University of Manitoba Libraries. Some benefits of the audit have included safety improvements and enhanced documentation for space-related lobbying efforts at the Libraries. Cet article offre un aperçu général de la façon dont les bibliothèques de l’Université de Manitoba ont adapté le concept du kindness audit (« contrôle de bonté ») pour identifier et documenter les soucis et réussites d’espace, de facilité d’utilisation, et de signalisation à travers tous les vingt emplacements du système. L’article inclut un contexte du développement des méthodes de rapport de l’expérience spatiale et les alternatifs méthodologiques potentiels quand ils peuvent être nécessaires. L’accent sera mis sur l’estimation pratique et peu coûteuse, et le droit des utilisateurs d’être à l’aise et de s’occuper eux-mêmes de leur navigation dans les espaces de la bibliothèque. Les résultats du kindness audit ont identifié plusieurs tendances majeures en général : l’utilisation de la signalisation inconsistante faite maison, la signalisation dépassée pour la technologie et les sorties, une insuffisance des prises de courant et des problèmes d’inaccessibilité aux comptoirs de service. Les recommandations générales pour adapter le kindness audit à d’autres institutions existent pour assurer l’implication du personnel dans le projet et pour la planification préalable. Grâce à cet exercice, plusieurs améliorations se sont déjà produites aux bibliothèques de l’Université de Manitoba. Parmi les avantages du kindness audit sont des améliorations de sécurité et de documentation des efforts de lobbying qui concernent l’utilisation de l’espace aux bibliothèques.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
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 score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.166
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.288 · 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