Akviziční strategie cizojazyčné literatury ve veřejných knihovnách: srovnávací studie
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public libraries are facing a great challenge to succeed in serving their increasingly diverse communities. This thesis focuses on the acquisition of foreign-language books in public libraries and attempts to address the question whether libraries have special strategies to select and acquire foreign-language books. Particular attention is paid to fiction, the main genre offered by public libraries. To help answer the thesis question, the author compares the acquisition strategies of the Municipal Library of Prague and the Zentral- und Landesbibliothek Berlin using structured interviews with the key persons responsible for the acquisition of foreign-language books. As a background, the author provides a literature review of foreign-language materials in public libraries and specifically, the acquisition strategy for those materials (i.e. including case studies, research projects and trends from the Czech Republic, the US, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Denmark and Netherlands). This knowledge foundation is considered in the comparison of the two libraries and their acquisition strategies. The comparative study confirms the trends highlighted in the literature review, such as outsourcing, approval plans and gifts as common ways of acquiring foreign- language literature. This thesis further contributes...
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it