MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133021357

Nurturing Tomorrow’s Readers: The Role of Storytime in Ontario Public Libraries

2025· dissertation· W7133021357 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Chia-Jung Janice Chuang

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2025
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsSociocultural evolutionMultitudeGrounded theoryService providerService delivery frameworkBest practicePublic serviceProfessional development
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Library storytime is a core service in many public libraries that provides a multitude of benefits to children's early development. Currently, the existing literature on storytime research, especially within the Canadian context, is limited. Using case study research, my thesis aims to address the critical research question: How are storytimes being conducted in today’s public libraries? This research is grounded in sociocultural theory, which emphasizes the significance of social and cultural contexts in shaping children’s early development through social interactions. The data collected includes in-program observations, storytime outlines, and audio recordings of storytime, as well as interviews with storytime providers and caregivers. Findings reveal that current storytime programs emphasize multimodal learning and play-based pedagogical approaches, ultimately benefitting the library, caregivers, and children. Storytime providers incorporate abundant strategies in their planning and delivery to engage, scaffold, and manage participants. Importantly, the study concludes that the provider, content, and professional development are exemplary elements for storytimes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0290.012
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207