Building capacity in systematic review searching: a pilot program using virtual mentoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: A well thought out, comprehensive search is the foundation for all systematic review research. Consequently, working on a first systematic review search can be intimidating. Articles and workshops, being less intensive than one-on-one training, are unlikely to instil enough confidence in one's ability to do a good job in this process. In this pilot program, an ongoing mentoring relationship was created as a means of building capacity and confidence in systematic review searching. Description: The mentorship program occurred in a virtual environment because the mentee and mentor were at two different institutions. Outcomes: To compensate for the distance, the mentor and mentee communicated and collaborated using free online collaborative software. The process for engaging in the program was developed between both the mentor and mentee to ensure individual and shared objectives would be met. This pilot program's process involved sharing searches, reflective journaling and recording time. Discussion: Building capacity in systematic review searching with an inexperienced searcher through virtual mentoring is an effective means of building confidence and skills in systematic review searching, and in building a sustainable mentor/mentee relationship.
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 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 | 0.031 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".