Library Usage Habits of First- and Second-year Medical Students at a Satellite Campus: Report on an Exploratory Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Anticipating the information needs of undergraduate medical students can be challenging, especially within the context of distributed medical education at a satellite campus. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how first- and second-year medical students in the Dalhousie Medicine New Brunswick program are using their satellite campus' library services and if they would prefer to use their home institution's electronic collection as opposed to print collections from the satellite campus library. Methods: First- and second-year medical students were asked to complete a paper survey towards the end of their academic year, which focused on background information, study habits, access preferences and tendencies (print book vs. electronic), satisfaction with their physical library space and collection, as well as their likelihood of completing required course readings. Results: Although both groups actually used electronic books more than print, the first-year class stated a preference for print books. Overall students were satisfied with their physical library's services, but were less likely to borrow a book if it is on course reserve. Discussion and Conclusions: When providing library services to undergraduate medical students, it is important to note that their opinions and needs can evolve quickly and be unpredictable. Librarians should consider maintaining a print collection while transitioning to electronic, in keeping with the trends of academic health librarianship.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".