MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999397910 · doi:10.1108/07378830610692091

Evidence‐based librarianship:a personal perspective from the medical/nursing realm

2006· article· en· W1999397910 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary Hi Tech · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRealmOriginalityPublishingPerspective (graphical)Value (mathematics)Medical libraryEvidence-based practiceSociologyLibrary sciencePublic relationsNursingMedical educationPsychologyKnowledge managementMedicinePolitical scienceComputer scienceAlternative medicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Seeks to spread the concept of evidence‐based practice beyond the health sector. Design/methodology/approach The authors have worked with physicians and nurses and offer their observations from being part of the development of the skills and tools of evidence‐based practice. Findings Librarians need to increase their reliance on sound evidence to support their programs and services. They also need to become more active in producing and publishing evidence for their peers and others outside the profession. The authors feel that librarians have the abilities to do this, especially if supported by their organizations and institutions with respect to education and resources. Originality/value The paper should be of use in the development of evidence‐based librarianship.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.213
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it