Meeting Campus Linguistic Diversity: A Multilingual Library Orientation Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought to determine whether offering multilingual orientation sessions to non-native English-speaking students at the beginning of an academic year would improve their knowledge of library services and resources. In September 2015, McGill Library offered 11 orientation sessions in five different languages—English, French, Mandarin Chinese, Persian, and Spanish. A total of 74 students attended the sessions. Noticeable attendance patterns included: (1) sessions offered earlier in the semester had high attendance and (2) the Chinese sessions received the most participants. This study also evaluated students’ learning via an assessment questionnaire at the end of each session. The assessment results suggest an increase in students’ awareness of services and resources offered by McGill Library. This article reports on the planning, implementation, and assessment of this program; discusses the challenges encountered and lessons learned in organizing and delivering these sessions; and provides recommendations on organizing similar multilingual library orientation programs to address the needs of a diverse student population on campus.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".