Quality in Brazilian Academic Libraries: Proposal of Indicators from the Customers' Point of View
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The management of quality in academic libraries, as a management method that allows the improvement of performance, has been the object of interest for the managers of these services. In this context, the identification of indicators that may take into account the social-economical and political context that permeate the reality of the information services is essential to better adequate the quality proposals. A search aiming to identify and validate proper indicators for academic libraries in developing countries was developed by a group of researches and professionals involved with many teaching units of São Paulo Academic. Based on a bibliographic survey about the application of quality on information services, the research aimed to validate 16 indicators appointed in the literature and considered, by the research staff, as belonging to Brazilian reality (communication, access, reliability, courtesy, effectiveness/ efficiency, quality, response, tangible, reliability, security, extension, warranty, external customer satisfaction, cost/benefit and response time). From the data collection performed with 7 academic libraries in the Dentistry field, that served as environment to apply and validate the indicators, a proposal for its adequacy to the characteristics of the Brazilian academic environment was elaborated. It was concluded that the indicators tested in the dentistry libraries made possible the identification and characterization of the main elements that must be present during the evaluation of the quality of an information service of academic nature, and may be adapted and seen in the context of other environments, as well as to be used to permanently monitor the information services inserted in the Brazilian context.
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 | 0.015 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".