MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6987334660

Space, Power and the Public Library: A Multicase Examination of the Public Library as Organization Space

2013· article· en· W6987334660 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlueprintLibrary classificationPower (physics)Organizational structureSpace (punctuation)Service (business)Public spaceLibrary function
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the materially-embedded relations of power between library users and staff within public library buildings and how building design regulates spatial behavior according to library organizational objectives. Most specifically it considers three public library buildings as organization spaces and determines the extent to which their respective spatial organizations reproduce the relations of power between the library and its public that originated with the modern public library building “type” ca. 1900.\nI adopted a multiple case study design, employing several qualitative data collection methods and analysis. I conducted site visits to three, purposefully-selected public library buildings (i.e., “cases”) of relatively similar size but varying ages: first, a neo-classical Carnegie library (updated with extensive renovations and additions); second, a library of the late-Modernist period containing no additions or extensions; and third, a postmodernist (and recently completed) library building (also without extensions or additions) exemplifying the most current application of library design principles. I visited each library for 5 days. Site visits included: blueprint analysis (to understand the library space as conceived by planners and architects); organizational document analysis (to understand the library’s organizational goals and service objectives); in-depth, semi-structured interviews with library users and library staff members (to understand how, and for what reasons, library users and staff use different spaces within the library building); cognitive mapping exercises with all interview participants (to understand how they perceive landmarks and boundaries within the library); and observations and photography (to record general library activity).\nFindings indicate that—despite newer approaches to designing public library buildings, the use of newer information technologies in libraries, and the emergence of newer paradigms of library service delivery (e.g., the “user-centered” approach)—the library as an organization still relies on many of the same socio-spatial models of control as it did one century ago when public library building design first became standardized. This not only calls into question the public library’s progressiveness over the last century but also hints at its ability to survive in the new century.

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 categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.021
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.225 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207