MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309495856 · doi:10.32920/21596769

Assessing Scan and Deliver during COVID-19 and Beyond Presentation

2022· preprint· en· W4309495856 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lisa Levesque, Sanjoy Banerjee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresentation (obstetrics)Metropolitan areaService (business)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Library sciencePandemicSpace (punctuation)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakPlan (archaeology)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Political scienceBusinessPublic relationsComputer scienceMedicineHistoryMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>This is a conference presentation delivered at Library Assessment Conference in November 2022. </p> <p>Toronto Metropolitan University Library implemented the scan and deliver service in June 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic. With this service patrons can request a portion of text, such as a chapter of a book or a journal article, be scanned by a library staff member and emailed to them. This and other complementary services were implemented because of limited access to the physical library building and the print collection due to pandemic lockdowns. As the Library space reopened to patrons, we assessed this service to understand its impact and plan for future service offerings. This paper addresses why Toronto Metropolitan University Library patrons have used the scan and deliver service: what benefits does it offer them, what role do scanned materials play in their scholarly research, and what barriers does it help them overcome? These questions will inform the future of this service at our library and can be used to address similar questions facing other libraries regarding services implemented mid-pandemic. </p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207