MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385994113

Best Reference Practices are Not Observed in Telephone Ready Reference Services. A review of: Agosto, Denise A. and Holly Anderton. “Whatever Happened to ‘Always Cite the Source?’” Reference & User Services Quarterly 47.1 (2007): 44-54.

2008· review· en· W4385994113 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julie McKenna

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLibrary scienceOperations researchInformation retrievalEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective – To study source citing practice in telephone reference service in large public libraries in the United States and Canada. Design – Field simulation (unobtrusive testing). Setting – Large public libraries in the United States and Canada. Subjects – Telephone reference staff of the 25 largest public libraries in the United States and Canada. Methods – The 2005 World Book Almanac was used to select the 25 largest (in terms of population served) public libraries in Canada and the United States. Each system’s Web site was checked to locate the telephone number for reference service. For some systems it was necessary to call the general telephone number for the main library or the first branch listed on the Web site. Five ready reference test questions were developed from a list of questions that students in a graduate library and information science course had previously asked of public library telephone reference services. The selected questions in the order that they were asked were: 1. Can you tell me when Valentine’s Day is? 2. Who is the current governor/premier (of the state/province where the library is located)? 3. What is the population of Montana? 4. In which state is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) located? 5. What is the French word for “chiropractor”? The authors called each of the 25 libraries during five consecutive weeks at different times of the business day. Each week, one question was asked; once an answer was received, no clarification was requested and the call was ended. The study reports the results of 125 reference transactions. For this study, the following definitions were used to assess complete citation for each type of information resource: • For a Web site – the complete URL (title and sponsor of the site not required). • For a digital database – the database title and the title and year of the specific item (author, publisher, page number not required). • For a print resource – the title and year (author, edition, page number, publisher and place of publication not required). Each reference transaction was noted to record whether the answer was correct and to define the nature of source citing that occurred. Other notes were kept to describe other respondent behaviors and attitudes demonstrated during the transaction. Main Results – 93.6% of the answers to the 125 reference questions were correct. Complete citations were provided seventimes (5.6%) and partial citations were provided an additional thirty-one times (24.8%). In 68% of the 125 transactions, no source citation information was provided. There was a corresponding relationship between the difficulty of the reference question and the respondent’s provision of any citation source (either a complete or incomplete citation source). Sources were generally not provided for simple questions even though the practice of citing is expected for all levels of questions. The practice of citing in order to reveal the path to the answer so that the user may become independent in the future was not observed. In addition, five “negative closure” techniques were employed by respondents. These included unmonitored referral; immediate referral away from the service; articulating that the encounter would not be successful at the start; shutting down the transaction either by tone of voice or by use of phrase that precluded any further interaction with the user; or claiming that the information did not exist or was not available. A reliance on digital formats rather than print sources was found. Conclusion – The accuracy rate of the answers to the questions was very high (93.6%), but other aspects of the service were considered to be less than satisfactory. The Reference and User Services Association (RUSA) Guidelines, considered the best practices for reference service, were not observed and in particular, the source citation rule was not followed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.148
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.148
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0110.013
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.008

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 head0.415
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.136 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainReporting
GenreReview

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyFrench-language works237,207