Subject knowledge in the health sciences library: an online survey of Canadian academic health sciences librarians.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study investigated whether Canadian academic health sciences librarians found knowledge of the health sciences to be important and, if so, how they acquired and maintained this knowledge. METHODS: Data were gathered using a Web-based questionnaire made available to Canadian academic health sciences librarians. RESULTS: Respondents recognized the need for subject knowledge: 93.3% of respondents indicated that subject knowledge was "very important" or "somewhat important" to doing their job. However, few respondents felt that holding a degree in the health sciences was necessary. Respondents reported devoting on average more than 6 hours per week to continuing education through various means. Reading or browsing health sciences journals, visiting Websites, studying independently, and participating in professional associations were identified by the largest number of participants as the best ways to become and stay informed. CONCLUSIONS: Although more research needs to be done with a larger sample, subject knowledge continues to be important to Canadian academic health sciences librarians. Continuing education, rather than formal degree studies, is the method of choice for obtaining and maintaining this knowledge.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".