English Literature Students at Spanish University Have Positive Perceptions Towards but Limited Understanding of Online Resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Review of: Roig-Marín, A., & Prieto, S. (2021). English literature students' perspectives on digital resources in a Spanish university. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102461 Abstract Objective – To assess students’ perception, use, and format preferences of library resources. Design – Online survey questionnaire. Setting – A public university in Spain. Subjects – 134 second-year, third-year, and fourth-year undergraduate English language and literature students. Methods – An anonymous survey was built using Google Forms and shared with eligible participants during March and April 2021. Survey participation was voluntary, although students were encouraged to respond and were provided with class time to do so. Nonetheless, due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic at the time of this study, courses were taught in a hybrid (both in-person and online) format and class attendance was not mandatory. The survey consisted of six multiple choice and four open-ended questions, and answers were required for all 10 questions. Main Results – Respondents were mostly satisfied with the available resources in supporting their studies in English literature and culture, with the majority preferring to access resources online (51%) or through both online and print formats (14%). Convenience was the most commonly cited reason for favoring online access, while improved processing and learning were mentioned by those preferring print. A majority of respondents also indicated they have used online resources from either their home university library (72%) or other libraries (55%). Conversely, 29% of the respondents were unable to identify any specific electronic resources. Conclusion – Study results indicate that Spanish undergraduate students majoring in English literature generally have a positive perception of library resources in supporting their studies and prefer online access over print. However, many of these students may also have an incorrect or limited understanding of how to differentiate between library resources, general websites, web search engines, or computer programs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".