MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890021668 · doi:10.1080/02763877.2018.1515688

Online Chat Reference: Question Type and the Implication for Staffing in a Large Academic Library

2018· article· en· W2890021668 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Reference Librarian · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStaffingAcademic libraryQuestions and answersComputer scienceReference deskService (business)Frequently asked questionsLibrary scienceWorld Wide WebDigital referencePsychologyInformation retrievalMedical educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the types of questions asked in an academic online reference chat service to ascertain the level of library staff expertise needed to answer the questions. The transcripts from a large academic library were analyzed to determine both the type of questions asked, and the complexity of the reference questions asked. The data showed that 75% of the questions asked were non-reference, 17% of the questions asked were ready-reference, and 8.6% of the questions asked were in-depth or complex reference questions. Library staff with the capacity to answer both circulation and general reference questions would have the optimum level of expertise needed for staffing the types of questions asked through chat reference.

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 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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.010
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.301 · 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