Information Seeking and Source Availability in Gerontology Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on a study of information seeking and resource availability in the field of gerontology. Thirteen scholars were asked to describe their information seeking behaviour, and subsequent success in acquiring resources to support their teaching and research in this area. Library resources available to these scholars were examined. Findings indicate that scholars rely heavily on available electronic resources. The findings also raise questions regarding how collection development is coordinated for a cross-disciplinary field such as gerontology.Cet article présente une étude sur la recherche d’information et la disponibilité des ressources dans le domaine de la gérontologie. On a demandé à treize chercheurs de décrire leur comportement informationnel de recherche et leur succès subséquents à obtenir des ressources pour étayer leurs enseignements et leurs recherches dans ce domaine. Les ressources des bibliothèques disponibles pour ces chercheurs sont examinées. Les résultats indiquent que les chercheurs se référent fortement aux ressources électroniques disponibles. Les résultats…
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 | 0.033 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".