MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408403510 · doi:10.1145/3677389.3702575

Do Smart City Policies Promote the Development of Public Libraries?: An Empirical Study Based on the Difference-in-Differences Method from China

2024· article· en· W4408403510 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaohua Zhu, Shengnan Yang, Peng Xiao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Cities and Technologies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaEmpirical researchSmart cityComputer scienceBusinessRegional sciencePolitical scienceEconomic growthWorld Wide WebEconomicsInternet of ThingsSociologyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of public libraries is evolving with the Smart City (SC) trend, but the impact of SC policies on libraries remains under-evaluated. Using the Chinese SC program as a testbed, we applied the Difference-in-Differences (DID) method to assess these policies' effects on infrastructure and services. Results show SC policies enhanced physical collections but negatively impacted space and seating, with no significant effect on services. We discuss the complexity underlying the interplay between digitization and public libraries' roles in the SC context, suggesting a need for further research and policy consideration.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 topicSmart Cities and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207