Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The end of yet another calendar year leads to a time of new beginnings and new challenges. For me, this is the end of my three year term as Editor-in-Chief of EBLIP, which has been a very rewarding challenge personally and professionally. I would like to thank each and every person who has contributed to the success of the journal. EBLIP relies on the talented and professional people who regularly give of their time and expertise. I particularly want to thank the Editorial Team who has worked so closely with me over the past three years: Alison Brettle, Lorie Kloda, Katrine Mallan, Jonathan Eldredge, Michelle Dunaway, and our former intern Andrea Baer. Thank you! In the past three years, EBLIP has continued to grow and thrive. We currently have more than 3400 registered readers, and an Editorial Advisory Board comprised of 70 people from 11 countries. Several of our papers have had more than 5000 pdf downloads, and the average number of downloads is 1308. I am also pleased to let you know that we have recently been accepted for inclusion in Scopus. In looking back and reflecting on the past three years, we have continued to build a strong open access journal that is relevant to LIS practitioners. We have increased the number of articles being published, and the overall number of submissions. Content is wide ranging, including multiple sectors within library and information studies. Our evidence summaries continue to be the heart of our journal, with more and more research from our field being critically appraised in this way. We have also added new sections such as Using Evidence in Practice, in which authors reflect on incorporating evidence into practice. And now it is time yet again for renewal and change. I am very pleased to welcome Alison Brettle of the University of Salford, as she begins her three year term as Editor-in-Chief. Alison has been the Associate Editor (Articles) since the very early days of publication and brings extensive knowledge of evidence based practice to the role. Alison was recently named as one of four “information hubs” by participants in a study by the U.K.’s LIS Research Coalition’s RiLIES project which is investigating the impact of LIS research on LIS practice – a great honour! EBLIP readers are lucky to have Alison take over as Editor-in-Chief!As for me, I will be sticking around as Associate Editor for a new section we are adding to EBLIP – Reviews. Review articles provide a way for librarians to obtain an overview of the evidence on a particular topic and stay current with the literature. Reviews may take on several different forms, including an overview, systematic review, meta-analysis, literature review, or state-of-the-art review, among others. For a detailed explanation of the types of reviews possible, please consult Grant and Booth (2009). We are particularly interested in reviews which contain information on the state of research on a particular topic, so if you are interested in exploring a topic and writing about it, please be in touch. This issue of EBLIP contains several written versions of presentations given at the EBLIP6 conference in June of this year. In the Feature section, we have keynote addresses, a winning presentation, and reflections on the conference from participants. As well, all of the papers in the peer-reviewed Articles section are based on presentations given at the conference. In addition to the conference content, Lorie Kloda has put together a record number of Evidence Summaries for you. Enjoy!
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,265 | 0,089 |
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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».