Informing interlibrary networking and document supply in the English National Health Service: a comparison of models from five countries and a Caribbean network
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
Purpose To identify the issues associated with the introduction of desk top document supply to workers in the UK National Health Service (NHS). Design/methodology/approach This paper assesses network models from five countries: Australia, the USA, Italy, Iceland, and Canada, and BIREME, a Latin American and Caribbean network. Factors considered will include library types involved, organizational structure of library systems, length of system implementation, formats of documents involved, and efficiency of the system. Funding and pricing structures, where information is available, are described. Findings Complementary collections are necessary for the widest, most cost‐effective access to information. Access to electronic resources does not alleviate the need for remote document supply. Automation of library systems should improve the user experience, but does not necessarily replace the need for the involvement of library services and staff. Using software that conforms to the ISO ILL protocol and other industry standards such as Z39.50 allows for coordination of and improved efficiency of remote document supply (RDS) processes. Centralization of RDS does not guarantee an efficient service for users. Originality/value Provides insights into current thinking in the NHS for delivering material electronically directly to end users.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it