MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897307316 · doi:10.1108/lm-05-2018-0039

Global library marketing research

2018· article· en· W2897307316 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary Management · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb and Library Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScopusSubject (documents)CitationLibrary scienceChinaMarketing scienceMarketing researchMarketingPolitical scienceBusinessMarketing managementComputer scienceRelationship marketingMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to quantitatively and qualitatively analyze library marketing research output using select bibliometric indicators with the aim of identifying top-performing countries, subject subthemes, organizations, authors and journals in the area. Design/methodology/approach The present study has examined 520 publications in library marketing, as indexed in Scopus database during 2006–2017. The study has statistically assessed processed publications and citations data into tables in order to ascertain research growth rate trends, global publication output and share, citation impact and distribution of library marketing research by country of publication, international-level collaborating country share of publication, by broad subject areas and preferred media of research communication. The study also provides bibliometric profile of top research organizations and authors in terms of their publications and citation indicators. Findings The body of literature in library marketing research is still very small, highly scattered and has so far registered no growth during the last 12 years, i.e. 2006–2017. Library marketing research is yet to emerge as a popular research area in library and information science. The USA dominates The library marketing research in the world, whereas other top participating countries including India, China, Japan, Canada, etc., are distant cousins. Top research institutions in the area of library marketing across the world include City University of New York, Florida State University, University of Texas at Austin, USA, Loughborough University and University of Sheffield, UK. The major focus of library marketing research was on academic libraries, followed by public libraries and medical libraries. Of late, the use of social media has emerged as an alternative to traditional library marketing techniques. Research limitations/implications The scope of study describing the status of library marketing research is limited to the period 2006–2017. The results of the study should interest researchers in finding solutions to formulating future library strategies and programs for achieving sustainable growth in this area of study. Originality/value The present study in library marketing research should be of interest to researchers in evolving, and formulating theories/best practices/and policies/programs for outreach to current and potential users for promoting library products and services.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.009
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.253 · 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