MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040872364 · doi:10.15407/np.56.053

Methods for determining the quality and efficiency of libraries functioning in the context of iso and arl normative documents

2019· article· en· W3040872364 on OpenAlex
Anna Venidyktova

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

VenueNaukovì pracì Nacìonalʹnoï bìblìoteki Ukraïni ìmenì V Ì Vernadsʹkogo · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicDiverse Scientific Research in Ukraine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeQuality (philosophy)Context (archaeology)Political scienceComputer scienceHistoryEpistemologyLawPhilosophyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article deals with the study of methods for measuring the quality and performance of libraries that are being developed and implemented by the Association of Research Libraries of the USA and Canada (ARL) and the methods of measuring the effectiveness offered by international ISO standards. The paper focuses on the method of measuring the quality and efficiency of LibQual, which has received widespread recognition in many countries around the world. The indicators of efficiency of library activities offered by ISO international standards are analyzed. The aim of this study is to introduce and analyze the methodology for evaluating the quality and effectiveness of Library Activity LibQUAL, which is used by the Association of Scientific Libraries of the United States and Canada (ARL), in comparison with international ISO standards. The study of the experience of applying the LibQUAL methodology for assessing the quality and performance of libraries, which introduced ARLs for 124 research libraries in Canada and the United States, shows that this technique is an effective tool and has several benefits. The analysis of survey data allows us to assess the relevance of library services to users’ expectations and to reengineering production processes to radically improve the key performance indicators of libraries. The analysis of the LibQUAL method showed that this method does not allow to assess the social long-term impact of libraries, the methods of measurement of which are proposed by the new international standard DSTU ISO 16439: 2016 «Methods and procedures for assessing the impact of libraries. Information and documentation». The economic and organizational effectiveness is not taken into account, the measurement procedures of which are described by the standard DSTU ISO 11620: 2016 «Library performance indicators. Information and docu mentation» and DSTU ISO 2789: 2016 «Information and documentation. International Library Statistics». The study proposes to combine LibQUAL technology with the methods of assessing the impact and effectiveness of libraries described by international ISO standards in order to comprehensively measure the quality and efficiency of libraries.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.380
Teacher spread0.333 · 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