MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7020109244

La biblioteca integrada. Un modelo de cooperación entre bibliotecas públicas y otras unidades de información

2008· article· en· W7020109244 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueE-LIS Repository (University of Naples Federico II) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerminologyCollection developmentDigital libraryRendering (computer graphics)Library classificationModalities
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cooperation between public libraries and school libraries is an alternative library model, capable of effectively rendering library services in the 21st century. The progress made in the last years of school libraries of our country, promoted by various administrations, opens a new horizon for public libraries in their challenge to develop their educational function. Dual use libraries or joint use library is a cooperative formula more than one hundred years old, with its advantages and disadvantages, it works successfully in countries like United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Latvia and Portugal, both in rural populations and in cities with more than one million inhabitants. From the study of the meaning of the concept, various definitions and the bibliometric analysis of different terminology used in the international professional literature, the use of the term "joint use library" is proposed, instead of "double use libraries", to refer in Spanish this form of cooperation established between public libraries and specialized libraries, considering that it is the most appropriate translation and because it includes the cooperation modalities established between more than two information units (public library with libraries of colleges, institutes, universities, museums, companies, archives and other local institutions). A joint use Library Observatory is created with the purpose of establishing a channel for discussion and debate, open to all professionals and entities, to collect this type of vicissitudes and discuss other aspects that affect the development or rejection of this form of library cooperation in which the public library exercises a fundamental role.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.221 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueE-LIS Repository (University of Naples Federico II)Same topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207