Future proofing the health library and information profession through research: the CILIP Agenda.
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
This paper describes the work undertaken by the
 Chartered lnstitute of Library and lnformation
 Professionals (ClLlP) to address the concerns of the
 health library and information community and in
 particular to address the concerns of this group for
 support ln becoming a more research-active
 profession. CILIP appointed a Health Executlve
 Advisory Group to address these issues and its report,
 "Future Proofing the Profession", and its
 recommendations in relation to research, are
 considered in this paper, alongside the
 recommendations relating to research made by an
 earlier CILIP PolicyAdvisory Group on the Knowledge
 Economy. ClLlPi response to the report including the
 establishment of a HEAG lmplementation Group is
 also described and the work of CILIP and its'special
 interest groups in addressing the research issues of the
 HEAG report are outlined.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.089 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it