Survey of public library use in the Ambulatory Clinic in the Children’s Hospital Winnipeg
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Recent studies highlight synergies for families receiving early childhood literacy support from their health care provider and public library, with more reading at home and higher quality book-sharing interactions. Our primary objective was to determine the percentage of Children's Hospital Winnipeg Ambulatory Clinic's patients who had ever used a public library. The clinic has a longstanding early-childhood literacy program and serves remote communities and low-income Winnipeg families. Methods: A structured survey was administered to parents or legal guardians by the first author. It explored library barriers and covariates that might affect library use. Analysis included descriptive statistics and a logistic regression model for predictors of library use. Results: Ninety-seven nearly consecutive surveys were administered, half prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Most respondents were female, from Winnipeg, and in the two lowest neighbourhood income quintiles. Roughly half (46.4%) of children had used a library. Most respondents wanted health care providers to promote literacy and provide information about public libraries, and more supported in-clinic distribution of books. The number of children per household positively predicted library use, possibly a proxy for experience with community resources. About 2/3 of respondents believed that library fines should be abolished. Most identified other barriers, for example, inconvenient hours, distance, or concerns about COVID-19. Conclusion: Less than half of surveyed families used public libraries, citing multiple barriers, including fines. Moreover, not all health care providers can offer new books and anticipatory guidance. Clinics that promote use of public libraries may therefore represent a low-cost, stand-alone alternative.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".