Mendeley: teaching scholarly communication and collaboration through social networking
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 This paper aims to highlight the productivity and collaborative features of Mendeley, a reference management tool, as well as recommendations on how Mendeley can be incorporated into an information literacy program. Design/methodology/approach Results from a literature review and feedback from students and faculty were used to provide background for this paper. Mendeley's features and potential benefits to librarians and researchers are discussed. Findings Feedback from students and faculty who use Mendeley are very positive owing to its productivity and social networking and collaboration features. The literature highlights Mendeley's usefulness in the context of citation management software. Practical implications The paper provides useful tips and best practices for integrating Mendeley into information literacy sessions and workshops for students and faculty. The paper also discusses how teaching Mendeley can facilitate scholarly communication between researchers and broaden the role of librarians on campus. Originality/value The paper shows that Mendeley enables higher level information literacy by helping users focus on locating and organizing information and spend less time on citation details. Mendeley's social networking features are compatible with emerging work practices, facilitating collaboration among researchers through group's functions and open sharing of information through groups and publication lists.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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