University Engineering Faculty Depend on Scholarly Journals, Web Resources, and Face-to-Face Consultations to Help Them with Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective – To study the information-seeking behaviour of engineering faculty. Design – Online survey; Purposive sample. Setting – Engineering departments of 20 large public universities in various regions of the United States. Subjects – 903 engineering faculty members (including 35% professors; 24% associate professors, 23% assistant professors, and 17% ranked as adjunct faculty, instructors, lecturers, professors emeriti and “other”). Methods – 4905 researchers were sent an email invitation to complete a 12-item survey with open and closed questions. Email addresses were gathered from university websites. Main Results – 96% of those surveyed find access to online scholarly journals (current and backfiles) as very important or important. 71% believe access to the physical book collection is very important or important. 56% feel that access to electronic book collections is very important or important. (Further analysis revealed a difference between newer and older faculty- 62% of newer faculty and 52% of faculty in field for 16 or more years think electronic book collections are important). Print subscriptions to journals are important to only 37% of respondents, and providing space to conduct research is important to only 36% of those surveyed. Besides attending conferences and scanning journals, face-to-face discussion with students and colleagues was a key resource for faculty for keeping current in the engineering field. 81% seek information at least weekly to prepare for lectures, about 74% at least monthly to conduct research or write publications, and 77% at least monthly to remain current in their field. 73% visited the physical library fewer than five times in the past year, but researchers were surprised that almost half (47%) rated assistance from library staff as important or very important. 70% see interlibrary loan services as important or very important. Conclusion – Engineering faculty rely on scholarly journals, Internet, and other electronic resources for their research. They depend on face-to-face consultations with students and colleagues. The physical space of the library is less important.
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 | 0.008 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.117 | 0.065 |
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".