Library Trends 21 (2) 1972: Standards for Libraries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
THE DESIRABILITY of developing and attaining standards has occupied the thinking of the library profession again and again for more than a generati0n.lThis movement toward standards has been increasingly successful in the US.Recently it has also made headway in other countries, e.g., in Great Britain, Canada, and the German Federal Republic.These efforts have not always resulted in precise standards, but at times in somewhat vaguer "guidelines."Perhaps we should start, then, from a definition of the term "standard," in order to avoid the confusion which seems to exist in the minds of some librarians.WebsteT's Third New International Dictionary ( 1966) says: "Standard," in general, "can designate, . .any measure by which one judges a thing as authentic, good, or adequate., , .Standard applies to any authoritative rule, principle, or measure used to determine the quantity, weight, or extent, or esp. the value, quality, level, or degree of a thing."The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969) defines "guideline" as "a statement of policy by a person or group having authority over an activity."Its definition of "standard" is much more specific and much more binding: "An acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value; criterion; norm. . . .a degree or level of requirement, excellence, or attainment."While these definitions apply to standards in general, there is a most helpful and specific statement on standards for libraries in the introduction to Standards for South African Public Libraries: "Library standards may be defined as the criteria by which , ., library services may
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".