MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907861237 · doi:10.5860/llm.v33i1.7316

A Position of Strength: The Value of Evidence and Change Management in Master Plan Development

2018· article· en· W2907861237 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

VenueLibrary Leadership & Management · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)CreativitySpace (punctuation)Change management (ITSM)Master planPlan (archaeology)Position (finance)Service (business)Value (mathematics)SituatedCorporate governanceBusinessKnowledge managementComputer sciencePublic relationsProcess managementEngineering managementPolitical scienceManagementEngineeringMarketingEconomicsGeographyFinanceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Libraries are experiencing significant change in how space is being used as well as increasing pressure from their funding and governance bodies to demonstrate the continued need for library physical space. There is a growing demand for library spaces that reflect different ways of accessing and using information, support learning and building community, and encourage creativity and the creation of new knowledge. To assist them in determining how to move forward, many libraries are developing master plans – multi-year high-level plans providing direction and vision but allowing flexibility to accommodate unanticipated needs – for their physical spaces and service delivery models. The challenge for libraries is to ensure that their master plans reflect the dynamic world in which they are situated and are supported by clients and other library stakeholders.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.007
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.255
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.055 · 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