MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1854042962 · doi:10.18438/b8g597

Use and access of grey literature in special libraries may be hindered by lack of visibility and cataloguing

2006· article· en· W1854042962 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

venuePublié dans une revue dont le pays d'attache est le Canada.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueOptics and Image Analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLibrary scienceGrey literatureGovernment (linguistics)Presentation (obstetrics)PublishingCollection developmentSociologyPublic relationsPsychologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceMedicineMEDLINELaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A review of: 
 
 Ranger, Sara L. “Grey Literature in Special Libraries: Access in Use.” Publishing Research Quarterly 21.1 (Spring 2005): 53-63.
 
 Objective – To examine the barriers to making grey literature (literature not controlled by commercial publishers) easier to access in special libraries.
 
 Design – Interviews.
 
 Setting – Variety of special libraries (government, corporate and specialized academic) in the United States.
 
 Subjects – Sixteen librarians from fourteen organizations in Washington, Michigan and Texas were interviewed. Four of the organizations were government libraries, four were corporate libraries and five were specialized academic libraries. One of the interviews was not used because the organization did not maintain a collection of paper-based grey literature.
 
 Methods – Librarians were selected as possible interview subjects via three methods: some were previously familiar with the author; some were referred to the author by friends, family and colleagues; two candidates volunteered in response to a presentation of the project at a professional meeting. Interviews were conducted between February 2002 and May 2003. A standard set of seven questions were used, but often followed with further questions. The interviews were conducted either in the library or the librarian’s office. The interviews were tape-recorded and the answers were written down. Interviews typically lasted between fifteen and thirty minutes and asked about the current state, holdings, access and use of grey literature in the special library.
 
 Main Results – Results from the interviews suggest a wide variance in the percentage of users that access grey literature. Grey literature was used less in the corporate libraries than the academic and government libraries. The percentage of the collection made up of grey literature also varied widely between the different libraries. Reports were found to be the most popular form of grey literature, although most of the libraries reported owning conference proceedings and newsletters in addition to reports. One interesting observation found during the interviews was that most of the users of grey literature are also producers of grey literature. The librarians surveyed reported that some of the reasons for using grey literature included use in research, to write (often more grey literature), interest in the topic, for class assignments, as records of previous practices, for localized studies, and for creating models and practices. Results found that for the libraries surveyed, much of the grey literature remains uncatalogued and what has been catalogued was done using a variety of methods. Over half of the libraries surveyed had their grey literature accessible online.
 
 Conclusion – Two main reasons were cited as explanations for why grey literature was not used as much as it should be: lack of cataloguing and visibility. In many of the libraries surveyed, much of the grey literature had not been catalogued, making it difficult to find and use the resources. Reasons cited for not cataloguing grey literature include lack of time, funds and/or knowledge. As well, in many of the libraries surveyed, it was found that the holdings of grey literature were not readily visible to the users, so users were not even aware that it existed.
 
 To improve the awareness and accessibility of grey literature, the author recommends regional depositories for grey literature, international standards for cataloguing and more cooperation between special libraries.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCommunication savante
Catégories consensuellesCommunication savante
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,417
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0020,420
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,026
Tête enseignante GPT0,261
Écart entre enseignants0,236 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle