Future proofing the health library and information profession through research: the CILIP Agenda.
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.
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 | 0.101 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.035 | 0.044 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.048 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.008 |
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".