MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2598371210 · doi:10.18452/1316

Workers and Libraries

2008· article· en· W2598371210 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Magnus Torstensson

Bibliographic record

Venueedoc Publication server (Humboldt University of Berlin) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutreachQuarter (Canadian coin)Public relationsWork (physics)Library scienceService (business)Political scienceRelation (database)SociologyBusinessEngineeringHistoryMarketingLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For what purposes are public libraries established? Who do the founders intend to reach with the activities of the libraries? How does the question of goals of public library work develop over time? These are important questions to analyse but first we have to demarcate. The paper treats public libraries and their forerunners in Sweden. The focus is on class and libraries and especially workers and libraries. Three phases are studied. The first is the founding phase of the modern public libraries in Sweden. What was the opinion about the existing popular libraries at that time and how was the discussion about developing the libraries to modern public libraries related to the question of workers and libraries? The second phase is the establishing of libraries within the labour movement during mainly the first half of the 20th century. What can explain the swift development of these workers’ libraries and why did they finally get absorbed into the library organisations of the municipalities? The third phase is the last quarter of the 20th century. This period started with a rapid expansion of outreach activities. One of them was books at places of work. The intention of the service was to reach workers, who used the public library in only a limited way. What happened with that service later on? This is analysed in relation to the development in society and especially within the public library sector.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueedoc Publication server (Humboldt University of Berlin)Same topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207