Gathering Evidence of Learning in Library Curriculum Center Spaces with Web GIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective –This article reports on a pilot research project that gathered usage statistics in specifically designated library learning spaces using a Web-based Geographic Information System (GIS). These learning spaces were then mapped to expected learning activities that would occur in these areas based on its intention or design. In this way, the library could begin to associate the usage of a space with different types of learning. The researchers then mapped these learning activities to campus learning outcomes to create learning impact statements. Methods – The researchers used observation data gathered with a Web GIS tool to examine space usage within the library’s curriculum center. Results – The pilot study found that student usage of the curriculum center was mainly associated with two campus learning outcomes: (1) Communicate and (2) Learning and Integrate. The evidence also indicated possible design improvements that may make the curriculum centers spaces more functional for students. Conclusions – The Web GIS tool proved to be a useful tool to gather evidence of student space usage within the library environment. The mapping of individual spaces to learning activities further enhanced the usefulness in interpreting how students are using library spaces. Leveraging the space usage data within learning outcomes statements created another means for the library to communicate its learning impact with campus stakeholders.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.451 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".