SHU Libraries Program Review 2018
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academic libraries and the role of librarians have changed dramatically since the University Libraries was last reviewed in 2007.At that time the primary demand was for print resources and traditional "brief questions" reference services.Today our users expect instant availability and electronic resources, which require extensive management and complex new skills and workflows.The introduction and implementation of an impressive list of new technologies has impacted every unit and library service.With a decline in traditional reference, we have greatly expanded our teaching role, including information literacy classes, research appointments and live chat, to better meet the needs and expectations of today's learning community.The scale of library instruction has expanded tremendously: last year librarians taught 362 classes and almost 7,500 students compared with almost 5,400 in 2012.Walsh Library has undergone major improvements since the last Program Review.These include an overhaul of the second floor information commons, provision of more collaborative student space, and new carpet and furniture throughout the building.There has been steady progress in improving the University Archives & Special Collections space, and processing and digitizing archival collections.The gallery has offered and promoted many successful exhibits and secured a number of prestigious grants.University Libraries is at the forefront of implementing new services, such as an online Institutional Repository (a platform that houses and promotes SHU scholarship), an electronic dissertations and theses service for graduate students, a variety of data, digital and preservation services, online research guides for a wide range of subjects, an email "ask a librarian" service and a live chat service.Other plans going forward include growing our instruction program with particular focus on transfer students, advocate for more teaching and study space (especially group study rooms), revise the current reference model, expand services for graduate students, increase outreach and promotion, and create grant writing and fund-writing initiatives.Key concerns raised in Dean Howard McGinn's 2008 response to the previous self-study document remain essentially the same: inadequate budget, lack of funding to support new academic 1.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.315 | 0.245 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".