LibQUAL+® and the Information Commons Initiative at Buffalo State College: 2003 to 2009
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective – To examine the effect of a transition to an information commons model of service organization on perceptions of library service quality. In 2003, the E. H. Butler Library at Buffalo State College began development of an Information Commons, which included moving the computing help desk to the library, reorganizing the physical units in the library around functional service areas, and moving the reference desk to the lobby. Methods – In 2003, 2006, and 2009, the library administered the LibQUAL+ survey, which measures the relationship between perceived library service delivery and library user satisfaction. The 2003 survey was conducted before the implementation of the Information Commons Initiative. Analyses of variance were conducted to compare the effect of the service changes on users’ perceptions of library service quality between the three data collection points, as well as to explore differences between undergraduate and graduate students. Results – The analyses revealed significant differences between the three data points, with significantly more positive perceptions of library service quality in 2006 and 2009 than in 2003. Comparisons between 2006 and 2009 were not statistically significant. In 2003, no significant differences were found between undergraduate and graduate students’ perceptions. However, in 2006, undergraduate students perceived higher levels of service quality after the development of the Information Commons than graduate students. This difference was maintained in 2009. Conclusion – The Information Commons has become a popular place for new programming, exhibits, workshops, and cultural events on campus. The library staff and administration have regained the respect of the campus community, as well as an appreciation for user-driven input and feedback and for ongoing assessment and 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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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".