How is the School Library Used? Mapping the Use of an Upper Secondary School Library
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To be able to secure an evidence-based development of the library service at a large upper secondary school in Norway, a multi method study was conducted to map the use of the library. Findings show that the library is used a lot by the students from all different branches. The main use is by students working on schoolwork sitting together with others. A stable part of the users prefers to work in the quiet area. Both teachers and students expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the library staff and emphasised the importance of the librarians' presence and availability for the users, both professionally and as responsible adults. Teachers and students alike perceived the library space as an attractive and very important physical place for students to work. A discussion of strengths and challenges of adequate methods for mapping school library use is included. Most research on school libraries concentrate on student achievement and cooperation between librarians and teachers. These are of course essential areas of concern and importance when it comes to discussing the position and function of school libraries. Nevertheless, the use of the libraries has had much less focus yet constitutes an important research area to understand the health of any library and its services. In this article we present results from a study of the use of an upper secondary school library. From 2016 to 2019, several studies were conducted relating to the use of the library at a Norwegian upper secondary school. These studies were a cooperative project between staff at the library and the Oslo Metropolitan University. The school management staff were also involved in choosing the research focus of the study. In this paper, the methods used and some of the findings are presented.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".