Evidence-Based Scholarly Communication: Information Professionals Unlocking Translational Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Evidence-Based Scholarly Communication Conference (EBSCC) was held March 11-12, 2010 in Albuquerque, NM. The conference addressed the perceived gap in knowledge and training for scholarly communication principles in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program. The EBSCC brought together librarians and information specialists to share evidence -based strategies for developing effective local scholarly communication support and training and, it is hoped, to form new coalitions to address this topic at the local and national levels. This brief communication summarizes the need for the conference, highlights the general sessions in order of presentation, and introduces the EBSCC research papers appearing in this issue of Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (EBLIP). It also includes a description of a unique peer-review process methodology pioneered at EBSCC.
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 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 | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.533 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".