Assessing the impact of evidence summaries in library and information practice
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
Objective
 This study developed, validated and administered an instrument to investigate the impact of research evidence summaries published in the journal, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. 
 
 Methods
 Using the critical incident technique, this mixed methods study began by developing and testing a survey questionnaire, disseminating it to readers of the journal and conducting follow-up interviews with a subsample.
 
 Findings
 A total of 86 practitioners responded to the survey and 13 took part in interviews. Evidence summaries led to impact at four levels: librarian knowledge, librarian practice, workplace practice, and library users. The instrument was revised as a result of the findings.
 
 Conclusion
 This study provides unique insight into whether evidence summaries are an effective means of bridging the research-practice gap for the library community and its scholarly communication channels. The validated impact assessment instrument may also be adapted for other means of disseminating research in library and information practice.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.292 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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