Public library building and development: Understanding community consultation and the design process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an increasing focus on the public library’s role as a place of and for the community, that should have at its heart the needs of that community. In this respect the development of new or renovated public libraries offers an opportunity for the design of these new buildings to reflect the needs and wants of the communities they serve. The aim of this project was to develop an in-depth understanding of the views and approaches of both librarians and architects involved in public library development projects in Australia. Using data gathered through semi-structured interviews this paper explores notions of community-focused design and co-design and the implications of involving the community in the process of library design for six public library development projects. Participants described a range of community engagement activities, relating benefits and challenges to the community consultation process. However, it was noted that there was also a curated nature to this input, and there was little evidence of community engagement extending beyond consultation to truly participatory design.
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 | 0.091 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| 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 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".