MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W405211819 · doi:10.1177/2158244014561214

Creating a Culture of Meaningful Evaluation in Public Libraries

2014· article· en· W405211819 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic relationsAuditPoliticsFace (sociological concept)Value (mathematics)SociologyPhenomenonState (computer science)Political scienceComputer scienceSocial scienceEconomicsManagementEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current state of practice sees public libraries, like all public institutions, enduring funding challenges within the dominant political-economic environment, which is shaped by the tenets of new public management and the neoliberal audit society. Libraries, feeling threatened and unsure about their future stability, seek new ways to demonstrate their value. However, they face institutional cultural constraints when attempting to introduce new assessment methods to meet this challenge. The new dynamics require them to go beyond output measures (counts). With research findings supported by survey and interview data from Ontario public libraries, and in agreement with the current literature on the subject, we propose a new model to address this phenomenon, serving two purposes: demonstrating a library’s present state of cultural readiness to introduce new systems of outcome assessment and charting a path toward creating a culture of meaningful evaluation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.275 · 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