MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073644421 · doi:10.3163/1536-5050.97.4.016

Measuring the value and impact of health sciences libraries: planning an update and replication of the Rochester Study

2009· article· en· W2073644421 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kathel Dunn, Karen Brewer, Joanne Gard Marshall, Julia Sollenberger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Medical Library Association JMLA · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineMedical Center, University of PittsburghU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesSchool of Medicine, New York UniversityNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of PittsburghYork University
KeywordsLibrary scienceValue (mathematics)National libraryHealth careMedical libraryGerontologyComputer scienceMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2007, the National Network of Libraries of Medicine (NN/LM), Middle Atlantic Region (MAR), formed a planning group to explore the possibility of replicating a landmark study on the value of hospital libraries and their impact on clinical care, popularly known as “the Rochester Study” [1]. The Rochester study was among the first studies to relate information services provided by librarians to patient care outcomes, and it continues to be cited as evidence of the value of library services. The purpose of this paper is to update the library community on the progress of the proposed value of libraries study.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.441
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.410
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4410.410
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0070.010
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Medical Library Association JMLASame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207