Evaluating the Trend of Using New Technologies to Attract Audience in Public Libraries in Iran
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective: This study examined the use of modern technology to absorb audience in public libraries under the Public Libraries Foundation.Methodology: This is a survey- kind of descriptive study. The statistical population are authorities of public libraries with standard and central level. A questionnaire was used to collect the data. Reliability of the questionnaire was calculated using Cronbach's alpha of 0. 871. Software SPSS19 was used to analyze data analysis.Findings: The results showed that the use of new technologies in public libraries is lower than the average level. The most use of these devices is shown in Tabriz Central Library at 58 percent. Also, there is no significant difference between respondents' opinions in terms of demographic variables, level and degree of education.The possible results and applications: The results of this research are useful for decision making and effective use of new technologies to attract and expand audiences in public libraries.Originality / value: This study is among the first research that examines new technologies in public libraries to attract audience. Earlier in marketing literature and web technologies, several studies have been conducted for public libraries, however, in this study the application of new technologies in libraries is used to increase to attract audience.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| 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 it