Libraries Assist Disaster Survivors with Information Needs and Refuge but Need to Amplify Their Role and What They Offer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Review of: Braquet, D. M. (2010). Library experiences of Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans flood survivors. LIBRES: Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal, 20(1), 1. https://www.libres-ejournal.info/528/ Abstract Objective – Describe the experiences and library usage of patrons displaced by Hurricane Katrina and the New Orleans Flood. Design – A qualitative study with interview components and a questionnaire with open and closed-end questions Setting – New Orleans, Louisiana and surrounding area Subjects – 314 questionnaire respondents and 30 interview (24 face-to-face and 6 phone) participants with 5 individuals completing both Methods – The study consisted of an online questionnaire with open and closed-end questions occurring concurrently with semi-structured interviews conducted over the phone and in person. Individuals were recruited via convenience sample by flyers at public locales in the New Orleans area and electronic mailing lists, forums, blogs, and news sites that catered to the New Orleans community. Main Results – Disaster survivors use libraries for Internet access, information and technology assistance, mental relief, physical refuge, and also view them as symbols of both loss and hope. Library resources (including the physical spaces) allowed survivors to regain a sense of control by helping patrons access local information and experience pre-disaster pastimes, such as leisure reading. Conclusion – The study provides rich description of how libraries can support people displaced by disaster, however just over half of participants did not consider the library a part of their disaster experience. Future research should examine how libraries and library workers can amplify their impact during disasters and disaster recovery, as well as partner with disaster planning and response professionals.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.008 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".