MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799560757 · doi:10.1177/0961000618769972

Connecting people with city cultural heritage through proximity-based digital storytelling

2018· article· en· W2799560757 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fariba Nosrati, Claudia Crippa, Brian Detlor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Librarianship and Information Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDigital Storytelling and Education
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStorytellingCultural heritageDowntownDigital storytellingPerceptionTest (biology)SociologyPsychologyHistoryMultimediaComputer scienceArtNarrative

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a research investigation on a project led by two libraries, Hamilton Public Library and McMaster University Library, in Hamilton, Canada, concerning the use of proximity-based technologies to share digital stories about a city’s culture. Proximity-based technology systems, such as iBeacons, allow users to receive information automatically when they are close to a physical spot. The project involved the setup of iBeacons that disseminated digital stories pertaining to Gore Park – a prominent historical park in the heart of downtown Hamilton. To test the viability of using iBeacon technologies to raise interest in a city and promote appreciation for a city’s cultural heritage, a pilot study was conducted. The study included one-on-one interviews and a short survey with 50 participants from the general public immediately after these participants used an iBeacon app to experience digital stories about Gore Park. Findings suggest iBeacons are viable tools to share city cultural heritage stories that yield improved perceptions of a city and greater appreciation for a city’s culture and history. Participants were appreciative of the digital stories and the iBeacon app. All participants mentioned that they learned something new about the city and that the app was very informative. Findings indicate that individual differences are important and can affect not only the acceptance and use of an iBeacon digital storytelling app, but also the extent to which the app can promote interest in a city and appreciation for a city’s cultural heritage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Librarianship and Information ScienceSame topicDigital Storytelling and EducationFrench-language works237,207