Use of orientation and reorientation as a means of user education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR LATIN AMERICA Office for the Caribbean Library orientation is a term that has historically been used to describe any attempt to instruct library users in the ways and means of using libraries.In recent years, however, it has taken on a special, more limited, and I feel somewhat negative, meaning.To quote from a recent textbook on the subject: "It is that portion of library instruction which introduces patrons to the physical layout of the library".This more restricted definition is most often found in the literature relating to academic and research libraries where the concept of orientation is many times considered passe.I would like to suggest, however, that unless any library is completely self-explanatory to the uninitiated user when he enters the library building, room or rooms, an orientation programme is a necessary component of the total library programme and that the responsibility to educate the user, to promote the library, to promote a continuing awareness of library services, particularly in a special library, is as much a responsibility of the librarian as is the need to develop and organize the information resources and to manage their exploitation through the provision of services and the development of service products.What then should be the proper ambit of orientation activities in a special library?And why have I titled this paper orientation and reorientation?Regarding orientation, let me expand a little on the definition quoted above.It is true that users and potential users must be given an introduction to the physical layout of the library but orientation should involve more.In Renford and Hendrickson's Bibliographic Instruction: A Handbook, the authors define orientation as "activities that introduce 1/ patrons to the facilities, services and policies of the library" -and refer to guided and self-guided tours as common examples.In a special
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.007 |
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".