Services for Users with Disabilities in Joint Libraries in China
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
China has a large population with disabilities. In China, there may be varieties of barriers for disabled users to access library resources and services. Joint libraries are a new type of libraries constructed by local government and one or more colleges (universities), playing a dual role as both academic library and public library. Therefore, the users of joint libraries include not only college students and teachers, but also other people from all walks of life. Undoubtedly, the resources and services of these joint libraries must be provided for all kinds of users. Since 1997, more than ten joint libraries have been constructed and opened in China. In this article, we first briefly discussed the causes for the barriers to users with disabilities in libraries. Second, taking joint libraries as a case, we focused on the services to remove barriers and to ensure information equity for disabled people. Provision of equal services for disadvantaged groups is an essential indicator of joint libraries. The present article may provide recommendations for the future sustainable development of joint libraries in China and other developing counties.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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