Swimming Upstream in the Academic Library: Exploring Faculty Needs for Library Streaming Media Collections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective - To compare Portland State University’s (PSU) local experience of using streaming media to national and international trends identified in a large qualitative study by Ithaka S+R. This comparison will help librarians better understand if the PSU Library is meeting the needs of faculty with its streaming media collection through a series of faculty interviews. Methods and Intervention - Two librarians from PSU participated in a large, collaborative, two-part study conducted by Ithaka S+R in 2022, with 23 other academic institutions in the United States, Canada, and Germany As part of this study, the authors conducted a series of interviews with faculty from PSU’s Social Work and Film Studies departments to gather qualitative data about their use, expectations, and priorities relating to streaming media in their teaching. Ithaka S+R provided guided interview questions, and librarians at PSU conducted interviews with departmental faculty. Local interview responses were compared to the interviews from the other 23 institutions. Results - PSU Library had a higher rate of faculty satisfaction than in the larger survey. Discussions raised concerns around accessibility of content, which was novel to PSU, and did not meaningfully emerge in the broader study. Local findings did line up with broader trends in the form of concerns about cost, discoverability, and lack of diverse content. Conclusions - The data collected by Ithaka S+R’s survey, which was the first part of their two-part study, is useful as it highlights the trends and attitudes of the greater academic library community. However, the second portion of the study’s guided interviews with campus faculty reinforced the importance of accessibility, the Library’s provision of resources, and the relationships between subject liaisons and departmental instructors. It emphasized that Portland State University’s Library has built a good foundation with faculty related to this area but has not been able to provide for every streaming instructional need. Reasons for this include limited acquisitions budgets, constraints of staff time, and market factors.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".