“Feels like you’ve hit the lottery”: Assessing the implementation of a discovery layer tool at Ryerson University
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The research study was initiated to evaluate and assess the web-scale discovery (WSD) service Summon to coincide with its launch at Ryerson University Library in September 2011. The project utilized a mixed methods sequential explanatory strategy and applied an inductive analysis. Quantitative data was gathered with two online questionannaires, followed by a series of focus groups with students for the qualitative phase. The quantitative phase of the study collected over 6,200 survey responses (21% of the university population), with over 420 students indicating interest in participating in a qualitative follow-up (6.7% of the respondents). The survey data showed that most undergraduate students rated Summon highly in ease of use; however, there was a lower satisfaction with the large quantity of, and relevance of search results. Additionally, partiticpants indicated that they used Summon in conjunction with other research tools, such as Google Scholar. In the qualitative phase, small focus groups consisted of a total of 13 participants, allowed the students to express their experiences with Summon in depth. The study has given insight into the role of Summon in terms of undergraduate information-seeking behaviour. Participant feedback revealed potential improvements for Summon at Ryerson and will be useful to other institutions either using or considering the use of similar products. Overall, the results from the study will help to infom Ryerson Library practice surrounding future direction in reference, instruction, and service promotion.</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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it