Harnessing history: Highlighting CHLA / ABSC capacity building through the Northern Alberta Health Libraries Association (NAHLA), 1985–2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective – The purpose of the Northern Alberta Health Libraries Association (NAHLA) History Project was to capture, collect, and document the history of NAHLA, record and share the process with other Canadian Health Libraries Association / Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada (CHLA / ABSC) chapters, and systematically organize NAHLA documents for delivery to the Provincial Archives of Alberta. Methods – The methodology employed for this project is described in detail in the CHLA / ABSC Fact Sheet “Reporting Your Chapter History: The Process”, available at the CHLA/ABSC Web site (http://www.chla-absc.ca). Results – During the course of the project, the History Group uncovered the very active and successful 23-year history of NAHLA. The History Group captured the story of the chapter’s origins, identified political actions and educational offerings, and learned of members’ perspectives about what NAHLA meant to them personally and professionally. Reviewing the Association chronology revealed changes in the focus of NAHLA over the years; those trends are also discussed. Discussion – The process of compiling and documenting a local association history can be a rewarding and enlightening experience. It leads to the long term preservation of knowledge of the association’s origins and development. The authors hope the present article will inspire other chapters to initiate similar projects to preserve their own local histories.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".