Uso das ferramentas de Web 2.0 pelos usuários da Biblioteca Central da Universidade de Brasília
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is a known fact that the insertion of new technologies into Information Science causes an extremely interesting impact not only on those who work with information, such as librarians, but also on everyone who needs information, scientific or not.By the end of the 20th century, society reconfigured its production process and knowledge organization process.Along with the web popularization and development, social and economic changes dramatically transformed the library user's profile.This research's aim was to identify the user of the Biblioteca Central da Universidade de Brasilia's profile in relation to web 2.0 tools.This research's aim was to identify the user profile of the Biblioteca Central da Universidade de Brasilia in relation to web 2.0 tools.A hundred and thirty-six people were interviewed amongst employees, teachers and students of the University of Brasilia.As the research develops itself, it's clear that such tools improve satisfaction regarding BCE's service, and besides, bring substantial gain to the system as a whole.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".