Library Assessment & Decreasing Resources: Making Things Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews how assessment has evolved in the past ten years at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. From having 1.5 people devoted to assessment to one person in charge of assessment while also being Head of Collections, this paper will examine how it became imperative to determine how assessment could be integrated into the day to day workings of the library. By examining the library’s deployment of the Insync survey, reliance on external and internal university reports, assessment for strategic planning activities, and progression of how data is gathered over time, this paper will reveal how Carleton Library has reviewed the services, collection, and space in a time where assessment is important but the time to devote to it is lacking. Partnering with other departments on campus and within the library is key.
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 | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.007 |
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".