At Your Leisure Pilot Project: Providing Leisure Reading Materials to a University Community through an Academic and Public Library Initiative
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
Leisure reading collections were once as integral to academic libraries as they currently are to public libraries. This article examines the results of a partnership between an academic and a public library to provide access to leisure reading materials to a university community through a one-year pilot project. Data were collected using circulation statistics, gate counts, and comment cards in the form of book inserts. During the pilot, gate counts increased by 6%, and 91% of participants indicated that they would continue to use the collection often or sometimes. The pilot was officially adopted as a new service at the end of the one-year trial period.
 Auparavant, les collections de livres de détente faisaient partie intégrante des bibliothèques académiques tout comme elles font présentement partie des bibliothèques publiques. Cet article présente les résultats d’un partenariat entre une bibliothèque académique et une bibliothèque publique cherchant à donner accès à du matériel de lecture de détente à une communauté universitaire par le biais d’un projet pilote d’un an. Les données ont été recueillies en utilisant des statistiques de prêt, le nombre d’entrées et des commentaires reçus sur des formulaires insérés dans les livres. Durant le projet pilote, le nombre d’entrées a augmenté de 6% et 91% des participants ont indiqué qu’ils continueraient d’utiliser la collection souvent ou à l’occasion. Le projet a été adopté officiellement comme nouveau service suite au pilote d’un an.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.168 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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