“Prediction is Difficult, Especially the Future”: A Progress Report
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective - This paper reviews developments in the consolidation and diversification of the evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP) paradigm since publication of the authors’ book Evidence Based Practice for Information Professionals: a Handbook in 2004. Methods - The authors provide an updated narrative review of key themes in the development of evidence based librarianship within the context of the new consensual term ‘EBLIP.’ Sources for this thematic framework included professional literature, Internet searches, and the authors’ personal experiences. Results - While considerable achievements have been realized within a three-year period, most notably the instigation of the journal known as EBLIP, a broadening of the paradigm to other library sectors, and increased availability of implementation studies, many challenges remain. Of particular concern is the lack of international strategic foresight in determining rotation of the biennial international conferences and distribution of influential EBLIP infrastructures and initiatives. Conclusion - While the enthusiasms and energies of individual practitioners and work teams have made considerable progress in meeting short-term objectives, uncertainty remains concerning how longer-term objectives requiring infrastructure and resources might be realized. From its faltering steps as a toddler EBLIP has developed to a ‘pre-pubescent’ stage with the promise of ‘growth spurts’ and ‘emotional crises.’ The next three years should prove both challenging and demanding.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.111 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it