An Assessment of Information Control: Understanding Library Service Quality from Users’ Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective – This study aims to measure library users’ perceptions of the quality of information control using LibQual, a survey instrument that measures library users’ minimum perceived and desired levels of service quality across three dimensions: Effect of Service, Library as Place, and Information Control. Numerous studies using LibQual have emphasized the service aspect, while quality of information control has received less attention. Previous studies have reported low quality of information control in academic libraries. Methods – A descriptive survey was conducted at the library of the Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatera Utara (UINSU), Medan, Indonesia, where active members of the library total 49,892. Using proportional random sampling, 100 completed surveys were obtained from a total population of 49,892. Results – This study shows that the quality of information control in the library of UINSU Medan does not meet minimum user expectations. Nevertheless, ease of navigation of information was perceived as acceptable. The study also reveals that the library has promoted information services through exhibition activities, user education activities, and social media. Conclusion – The findings suggest the need for libraries to improve the quality of information services, including content of information, access protocols, search time, ease of navigation, interface, and access from outside the campus. Further, libraries need to conduct continuous service quality evaluation on a regular basis (using tools such as LibQual) to understand the needs of users in terms of information control better. The results from the present study provide strong evidence to support a recommendation that, in general, universities should provide required resources and funding for libraries to improve information services to ensure that the libraries meet quality standards.
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".