Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Handbook of Art and Design Librarianship. Edited by Amanda Gluibizzi and Paul Glassman. London: Facet Publishing, 2010. 330 pp. 115.48 CDN. ISBN: 978-1-85604- 702-9 As Editor Amanda Gluibizzi states in Introduction to The Handbook of Art and Design Librarianship, art and design students differ from other types of academic users, and meeting information of these creative researchers poses unique challenges for librarians. This work brings together essays on a wide range of topics that are intended to guide art librarians in their day to day work, including carrying out their administrative responsibilities, developing and maintaining collections, designing innovative and relevant programming, and creating usable space. While is on American libraries, work is intended to have an purview and seeks to maintain a global focus through its inclusion of chapters dealing with libraries in UK, Qatar and Canada. Although not explicitly stated, this book is intended for art and design librarians at all stages of their careers, from recent graduates to experienced professionals. Authors come from a range of institutions and hold a wide variety of positions. Most chapters include useful bibliographies for further research. The book is divided into four sections. Part I, Roles and Responsibilities, includes chapters on governance and administration of art and design libraries, trends in art librarianship based on an international survey, accreditation for art and design libraries, and evolving role of visual arts liaison librarians. This section exemplifies what is perhaps one of greatest weaknesses of Handbook: while serving as a good starting point, many chapters are just too general to be very useful for more experienced art and design information professional. For example, Judy Dyki's chapter Accreditation and Visual Arts Libraries fails to provide sufficient detail with respect to unique requirements and challenges of accreditation reports relating to art and design libraries to assist librarians who are charged with preparing such formal self- study reports. In addition, surveys are alluded to in a number of chapters throughout book, including in this section, but methodology is not described in detail and actual survey is neither included nor referenced in bibliography at end of chapter. The chapters in Part II, Materials and Collections Management, on the opportunities and difficulties art libraries face in current collections environment and include discussions about art special collections; working simultaneously with print and digital collections and strategies for de-accessioning; risks and possibilities of digital prospects; scholarly communication and art publications; and cataloguing with visual user in mind (p. 49). Included in this section is one of strongest essays in volume, Beyond Monograph: Transformations in Scholarly Communication and Their Impact on Art Librarianship by Patrick Tomlin. It provides an overview and examination of changing nature of scholarly communication and burgeoning impact of those changes on art and design library (p. 92). As Tomlin points out, up to this point art librarianship has not been actively engaged with issues of open access and scholarship in arts. In Part III, Teaching and Learning, chapters explore the notion of visual literacy as an essential part of an art librarian's position; methods for weaving information literacy instruction into a studio class; working with image databases as sources of information; culturally sensitive art information literacy in societies with religious restrictions on image and media consumption; targeting multiple literacies - including visual and tactile learners - in art instruction; and art history student's special research and information needs (p. …
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.089 |
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".