MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399710396 · doi:10.18438/eblip30513

Increasing Student Engagement in a Re-opened Regional Campus Library: Results from a Student Focus Group

2024· article· en· W4399710396 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Isabel Vargas Ochoa

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus (optics)Focus groupGroup (periodic table)Student engagementMathematics educationComputer scienceLibrary scienceSociologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SettingThis article describes the Stockton Campus Library's challenges in increasing student engagement in the library, and the development of a student focus group used to aid in library space, service, and collection planning and design.The Stockton Campus Library (SCL) services students at the California State University (CSU), Stanislaus, which is a Hispanic Serving Institution-an accredited institution in the United States with at least 25% full-time enrolled undergraduate Hispanic students (U.S.Department of Education, 2023).The Stockton Campus is the only 4-year public institution in Stockton, a city with a population of over 320,000 residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023).In fall 2022, the Stockton Campus served 11% of CSU Stanislaus' full-time enrolment student population (Stanislaus State, 2023).Our student population is diverse; 64% of Stockton Campus students are first generation students (i.e., students whose parents did not complete a 4-year college degree or a university degree), 72% are women, 58% are Hispanic/Latino/a, 13% are Asian, and 5% are Black/African American (Stanislaus State, 2023).

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyFrench-language works237,207