Information professionals' participation in interdisciplinary research: a preliminary study of factors affecting successful collaborations
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
OBJECTIVES: This pilot study explores the conditions that support or hinder information professionals' participation in interdisciplinary research teams. METHODS: We undertook a preliminary grounded theory study investigating factors that impact on information professionals' participation in interdisciplinary research. Four biomedical information professionals working in academic universities and teaching hospitals in Canada participated in semi-structured interviews. Grounded theory methods guided the data collection and analysis. RESULTS: Participants identified the conditions that support or hinder research participation as belonging to four distinct overlapping domains: client-level factors including preconceptions and researcher resistance; individual-level factors such as research readiness; opportunities that are most often made not found; and organisational supports. CONCLUSIONS: Creating willingness, building preparedness and capitalising on opportunity appear crucial to successful participation in interdisciplinary research. Further exploration of the importance of educational, collegial and organisational supports may reveal additional data to support the development of a grounded theory regarding the facilitation of information professionals' engagement in interdisciplinary research.
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 | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.043 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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