The provision of bioinformatics services in Canadian academic libraries
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
Introduction – This article describes the level of bioinformatics services offered by academic libraries across Canada. It also assesses faculty use of bioinformatics resources and the need for library bioinformatics services at one academic institution, Concordia University. Methods – To assess the level of bioinformatics services at Canadian universities, a survey was sent to life and health sciences librarians at English-speaking Canadian universities comparable to Concordia University. To assess faculty use of bioinformatics and the need for bioinformatics instruction, another survey was sent to faculty of the Centre for Structural and Functional Genomics at Concordia University. Results – Approximately one-quarter of librarians surveyed provided services such as online research guides for bioinformatics resources, workshops, or online tutorials. Individual consultations with students were infrequent. The majority of the libraries where bioinformatics services were offered were at universities with a medical school. The faculty survey indicated that Concordia Centre for Structural and Functional Genomics researchers are heavy users of bibliographic and bioinformatics databases, using at least one of these databases on a daily basis. Most faculty members learned how to use bioinformatics databases on their own and regularly teach the use of these databases to their students or colleagues. Nevertheless, faculty at Concordia seem to be open to some form of collaboration with the library for the provision of bioinformatics services. Discussion – Although librarians can participate in the teaching of bioinformatics database skills, library services in bioinformatics at Canadian university libraries are still in the embryonic phase. Librarians should be trained in the use of these databases to increase their confidence and expertise and to help them market these skills to faculty and students.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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