MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410705318 · doi:10.29173/cais1929

Canadian Libraries Use by Immigrants from Ukraine

2025· article· fr· W4410705318 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Lana Soglasnova, Veronika Makarova

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSI · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSoviet and Russian History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanOntario Council of University LibrariesUniversity of Toronto
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsImmigrationPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This presentation addresses the use of libraries by Ukrainian immigrants in Canada based on a mixed methods study conducted primarily in Saskatchewan and Alberta, Canada. The objectives are to investigate the frequency and purpose of library use by the participants, and their preference for library type and services. The findings are important for improving library services to immigrants and refugees. L’utilisation des bibliothèques canadiennes par les immigrants d’Ukraine: un travail en course RésuméCette présentation traite de l'utilisation des bibliothèques par les immigrants ukrainiens au Canada, sur la base d'une étude à méthodes mixtes menée principalement en Saskatchewan et en Alberta, au Canada. Les objectifs sont d'étudier la fréquence et le but de l'utilisation des bibliothèques par les participants, ainsi que leurs préférences en matière de types de bibliothèques et de services. Les résultats sont importants pour améliorer les services de bibliothèque destinés aux immigrants et aux réfugiés. Mots-clésBibliothèques; Canada; immigrants ukrainiens; pandémie de Covid-19

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSISame topicSoviet and Russian HistoryFrench-language works237,207