The impact of COVID-19 on library board governance: An analysis of public library board meeting processes and participation in Canada in 2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In March 2020, provincial and municipal governments in Canada implemented measures to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, municipalities had to quickly transition to holding their public meetings in new ways. Some organizations moved to teleconference meetings, while others used videoconferencing software. Public libraries were no exception to this, and library boards began holding their public board meetings electronically. The aims of this study are threefold: First, to identify what methods were used to hold electronic public library board meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic, second, to determine whether such methods resulted in a change in public participation, and third, to ascertain whether or not public libraries intend to continue holding meetings electronically after the pandemic is over. To achieve the objectives of this study, the results of a web survey that was distributed electronically to 631 public library systems across Canada have been analyzed. The survey findings indicate that public library began using electronic meeting formats in 2020, and that Zoom was the software most frequently implemented. The findings also indicate that while an increase in attendance by the general public was not reported, libraries did report an increase in the number of staff who attended board meetings. Finally, the findings indicate that about half of libraries in Canada have intentions to continue with some level of electronic participation as part of their board meetings after the COVID-19 pandemic is over.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".