The medical digital library landscape
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.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify two medical digital libraries from each of the following three countries: Canada, the USA and the UK. It aims to discuss strengths and weaknesses in system design in an effort to provide a basis on which to improve both the organisation of, and the access to, electronic, scholarly information. Design/methodology/approach Inclusion criteria for identifying the medical digital libraries were, those who: had primarily text‐based collections, intended for use by researchers or healthcare professionals; were freely accessible, and fulfilled the author's definition of a digital library as opposed to an online database. (Medical digital libraries with either a historical focus or that had primarily image/video collections were excluded.) To identify suitable medical digital libraries, the following resources were used: scholarly databases, online search engines, government and national library web sites, lists of online medical resources, and university web sites. Selection preference was given to those libraries with the most recent launch dates and service features. Each library was systematically evaluated, qualitatively and quantitatively, from the user's perspective in six distinct areas: administrative overview and site architecture, knowledge organisation, results management, interaction with the collection, additional information services, usability, and personalisation. Findings The study finds that each digital library had a unique set of strengths and weaknesses. Each offered different services to help users identify relevant material and to quickly understand and assess their contents. However, this required that each library have a team of experts to obtain, assess, catalogue, and annotate the information. Where available, user comments were supportive of each effort and very positive. Research limitations/implications Medical digital libraries are an excellent conduit between authors and practitioners. However, they require intensive resources for establishment and maintenance. For these libraries to realise their full potential, emphasis must be placed on the currency and quality of their collections, maintaining pace with the technology employed by their users, providing services that facilitate the access and digestion of complex, scholarly information, and ensuring that online users are aware of the existence of these libraries. Practical implications This paper contributes to the overall improvement of existing and future medical digital libraries. Originality/value This is the first ever evaluation and comparison of freely available medical digital libraries from three countries.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
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.
score_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