Design for the Clarion Free Library: a drawing activity for the local youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While public libraries have a long history of providing services to teens (Bernier et al., 2005), research has shown contemporary youth have mixed feelings towards libraries. Agosto et al. (2016) studied a group of urban teens in the U.S. and their library use, revealing that urban teens viewed public libraries as irrelevant to their everyday lives because they have access to digital devices with abundant resources on the Internet. Similarly, Howard (2011) found that Canadian teens had a positive impression of their public libraries but they did not use libraries frequently for various reasons. Situated in this background, this project intends to study how rural teens perceive their public library and how they would design it differently. This presented project is timely and necessary as libraries face an increasingly uncertain future due to the pandemic and lack of funding. Understanding teens’ perspectives on what they wish to see in public libraries may help practitioners and researchers envision how to build a resilient future for the library community. In this project, the researchers invite the local teens at Clarion, PA to participate in individual virtual interviews that incorporate a drawing activity (Hartel, 2014) to develop an in-depth understanding of their ideal local public library. Currently, the project is work-in-progress and encounters some challenges in recruiting participants. Challenges in using the drawing activity with teens will be discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".