Three Evidence Based Methods to Compensate for a Lack of Subject Background when Ordering Chemistry Monographs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective – The aim of this article is to present evidence based methods for the selection of chemistry monographs, particularly for librarians lacking a background in chemistry. These methods will be described in detail, their practical application illustrated, and their efficacy tested by analyzing circulation data. Methods – Two hundred and ninety-five chemistry monographs were selected between 2005 and 2007 using rigorously-applied evidence based methods involving the Library's integrated library system (ILS), Google, and SciFinder Scholar. The average circulation rate of this group of monographs was compared to the average circulation rate of 254 chemistry monographs selected between 2002 and 2004 when the methods were not used or were in an incomplete state of development. Results – Circulations/month were on average 9% greater in the cohort of monographs selected with the rigorously-applied evidence based methods. Further statistical analysis, however, finds that this result can not be attributed to the different application of these methods. Conclusion – The methods discussed in this article appear to provide an evidence base for the selection of chemistry monographs, but their application does not change circulation rates in a statistically significant way. Further research is needed to determine if this lack of statistical significance is real or a product of the organic development and application of these methods over time, making definitive comparisons difficult.
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 | 0.165 | 0.453 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.039 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".