MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387683519 · doi:10.22259/2637-5915.0201004

Geographical Distribution of Library Software and Systems

2018· article· en· W4387683519 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Journal of Library and Information Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb and Library Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistLibrary scienceDistribution (mathematics)Relation (database)PopulationWorld Wide WebGeographySoftwareDescriptive statisticsComputer scienceInformation retrievalSociologyDatabaseMathematicsStatisticsDemographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective: The study aimed to determine the geographical distribution of the library software and systems in different regions of the world. Methodology: The descriptive-analytical method used. The statistical population included all the libraries whose information is entered to International Guide Website of Lib-Web-Cats (library websites and catalogs), 60986 libraries. A researcher-made checklist used as a data collection tool. Findings: On the average, the maximum number of the public libraries (956), the private libraries (31), the collegiate libraries (190), the medical libraries (14) and the law libraries (10) were located in the Pacific Region. On the average, Canada and the USA had the maximum number of school libraries, about 1100 libraries. The average number of research and art libraries in the 6 regions of the country was very low and approximately, zero. These regions were not similar in terms of the type of the libraries and the tools being used in each one. In other words, there was a relation between the region and the type of the library and the tools being used in each library of that specific region. Also, these regions were similar in terms of the total number of the libraries; i.e. there was no relation between the type of the region and the total number of the libraries. Discussion and Conclusion: It could be concluded that the type and number of the libraries in different regions of the world varied according to different privileging conditions of the societies existing in these regions. The type of the tools being applied in each library was different according to the specific geographical region. It would be interesting to mention that the geographical region had no influence on the total number of the libraries, which shows that the focus in all regions was on meeting the customers' needs rather than making a quantified set and complex of libraries. Innovation: According to the reviews and researches conducted, it seems that no comprehensive Research has been done on comparing library systems throughout the world. This Research provides a perspective on the application of library systems in different regions of the world and presents interesting results. Keywords: Library System, Information Systems, Library Software, Lib-Web-Cats, Geographical distribution.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.123
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.263 · 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