Information Science Professionals as Community Action Researchers to Further the Role of Rural Public Libraries in Small Business Economic Development: A Case Study of Tennessee = Les professionnels des sciences de l'information en tant que chercheurs en action communautaire dans le but de renforcer le rôle des bibliothèques publiques rurales dans le développement économique des petites entreprises: une e´tude de cas au Tennessee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article explores how information science professionals as community action researchers and rural public libraries can support small business economic development in Tennessee that has a traditionally debilitating history and culture. It provides insights for possibly applying similar efforts to other rural areas facing difficult socio-economic and socio-cultural circumstances. Resume: Cet article examine comment les professionnels des sciences de l’information en tant que chercheurs en action communautaire, ainsi que les bibliotheques publiques rurales, peuvent soutenir le developpement economique des petites entreprises du Tennessee, ou traditionnellement l’histoire et la culture sont negligees. L’article donne un apercu de l’application eventuelle d’efforts similaires a d’autres zones rurales confrontees a des situations socio-economiques et socio-culturelles difficiles.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.091 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".