Application of Artificial Intelligence for Reference Services in Academic Libraries: A Global Overview through a Systematic Review of Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines through a systematic review, the reference services rendered in academic libraries using artificial intelligence (AI) and by collecting data through environmental scanning. The objective of this systematic literature review is to provide a synthesis of empirical studies exploring the application of artificial intelligence for reference services in academic libraries. Data were collected from Web of Science, Scopus, and LISA databases. Following the rigorous/established selection process, a total of thirty five articles were finally selected, reviewed and analyzed. Thirty five papers were identified, analyzed and summarized on the subject relating to the application of AI and the methods which are most often used. The findings demonstrate that university libraries in Canada and China are leading in the deployment of AI for reference services. The AI techniques used mostly in the scanned university libraries are self-directed learning and natural language processing techniques; while the challenges of using AI for reference services are the problem of quality intelligence, linguistic style, privacy, a threat to intellectual freedom, bias, and cost; inadequate experts, poor network, poor training and lack of innovation, and limited knowledge about the technology. The study indicates university libraries take into account implementing AI for reference services.
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 | 0.013 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".