MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030269731 · doi:10.1108/00907320410519405

Health professional education, evidence‐based health care, and health sciences librarians

2004· article· en· W2030269731 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueReference Services Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsCritical appraisalMedical educationHealth careProcess (computing)PsychologyHealth professionalsMEDLINENursingMedicineAlternative medicinePolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence‐based medicine (EBM) evolved from an innovative method of teaching residents to use published literature for patient care. The missing piece to this critical appraisal approach was the skills needed to find the “best evidence” to use. Acknowledgment of this need provided many opportunities for librarians to become partners in the care process, including changes in provision of collections and services, modifications in searching skills (comprehensive vs clinical), and planning and educating undergraduates and graduates across the health disciplines. Librarians have increased their skills, made changes in practice, and become more important in educating and providing resources for practicing clinicians.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.331
GPT teacher head0.572
Teacher spread0.240 · 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