Analysis of the usage and diversity of grey literature in addiction research: a study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose The purpose of this study is twofold. First, the study shall evaluate the extent of usage of grey literature and its different types of addiction research. The second purpose of the research is to analyze the extent of usage of reports such as research reports, survey reports, data reports, etc. As the reports are produced in general by various organizations and can be accessed by not only academicians but also the general public, they play an important role in the dissemination of research to the people. Therefore, the study endeavored to identify the major organizations that are involved in the publishing of research reports in the field of addiction. Design/methodology/approach Scopus database was used for the purpose of collecting the data. References in the reference lists of the articles published in 2018 in the journal Psychology of Addictive Behaviors of the American Psychological Association were collected. Scopus indexes the references of the papers in two different categories, namely, indexed in scopus/scopus references and reference lists. They were then categorized as grey literature and non-grey literature. Further, reports were searched manually so that their producers/authors can be found and categorized according to the organizations. Findings The study found that grey literature comprises a very small proportion of citations in addiction research (just approximately 5 per cent). This suggests that the improper indexing and bibliographic control of grey literature may be one of the reasons behind the low numbers. Reports comprised the largest proportion of the grey literature cited in addiction research, followed by software documentation, unpublished manuscripts, guidebooks, handbooks, manuals, websites, government publications, etc. The reports of the US Department of Health and Human Services comprised the maximum citations in the reports category because of the reports produced by organizations like Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) which comprised 17.59 per cent of the total reports. National Institute of Health (USA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others. Other than the reports of the organizations of the USA, the reports published by the organizations of Canada, Australia, UK, New Zealand and one European Body were also cited by the articles of the journal. Practical implications The research focuses on the use of grey literature in addiction research. The findings of the study indicate very low citations to grey literature in addiction research. This reinforces the need for a separate worldwide information retrieval system for grey literature for researchers to conduct systematic reviews. Originality/value Very few studies have been conducted on the use of grey literature and hardly any research focuses on the use of grey literature in addiction research. The study goes one step further and identifies major organizations that are involved in the production of research reports in the field so that their reports can be properly indexed.
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 | 0,049 | 0,187 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,047 | 0,047 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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.
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 ».