MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175915170 · doi:10.1177/03400352211023079

Challenges and opportunities for parliamentary libraries during COVID-19: A case study of the National Assembly of Quebec Library

2021· article· en· W3175915170 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carolyne Ménard

Bibliographic record

VenueIFLA Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsBibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicPublic relationsSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakInstitutionNational libraryPolitical scienceBest practiceBusinessLibrary scienceComputer scienceLawMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parliamentary libraries play a crucial role in providing information support to decision-makers around the world. These institutions have faced an unprecedented situation with the COVID-19 pandemic. Many have had to modify their practices considerably to keep serving their users. This article explores how the National Assembly of Quebec Library has responded to this issue and redefined its services during the pandemic. The author presents the challenges and opportunities met while adapting virtual services, redefining document handling and improving team communication, and foresees future obstacles for the institution. This case study shares best practices and the lessons learned in the hope of informing and advising similar institutions facing challenges during this pandemic.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaScholarly communication
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Qualitativelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Qualitativemedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0580.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.160 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Scholarly communication

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFLA JournalSame topicLibrary Science and AdministrationCategoryScholarly communicationFrench-language works237,207