Library Space and Signage Kindness Audits: What Does Your User See?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 The results of the kindness audit identified several major trends overall: use of inconsistent homemade signage, outdated signage for technology and exits, lack of sufficient electrical outlets, and inaccessibility issues at service desks.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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".