MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2526478968 · doi:10.18438/b8pg8t

Richard Trueswell's Contribution to Collection Evaluation and Management: A Review

2016· review· en· W2526478968 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jacob L Nash

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCirculation (fluid dynamics)Library scienceDistribution (mathematics)Library circulationOperations researchHistoryComputer scienceMathematicsEngineeringLibrary automation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Review of: Trueswell, R. L. (1969). Some behavioral patterns of library users: The 80/20 rule. Wilson Library Bulletin, 43(5), 458-461. Abstract Objective – To demonstrate the relationship between library circulation and the percent of a library's holdings satisfying circulation. Design – Retrospective cohort study of library circulation data. Setting – Cambridge and Northampton, Massachusetts, United States of America. Subjects – The users of the monographic holdings of the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory Library and the Forbes Public Library. Methods – Trueswell compiled circulation data from the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory Library over a period of 5 years, ostensibly from 1964-1969. Additionally, he gathered circulation data from Forbes Public Library. Trueswell compared each respective collection of data against the entire holdings of each library, after which he converted each measure to a percentage of the whole. Main Result – Based on the collected data, Trueswell found that the percentages of both libraries’ holdings that satisfy circulation follow a power law distribution. He compared this with a previous study measuring journal circulation at a Health Sciences Library that exhibited the same pattern. He stated that these similar distributions demonstrated the "80/20 Rule." The distribution is such that any given percent of circulation will provide the percent of a library’s circulating holdings necessary to satisfy it. Additionally, Trueswell found that 75 percent of current circulation had circulated at least once within the preceding year. Conclusion – The findings have implications for core collection development, purchasing multiple copies of a given title, determining the optimal size of a library's collection, and weeding. Trueswell also submits the idea of developing regional interlibrary loan centers for books that do not circulate often, as a cost saving measure for most libraries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.083
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.278
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0830.278
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0190.018
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.012
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.006

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicLibrary Collection Development and Digital ResourcesFrench-language works237,207