Success in Research: Factors that Contribute to Increased Research Productivity Across Librarianship and Other Disciplines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research is a professional responsibility for many academic librarians. Some are successful researchers; others struggle to be productive. This content analysis is part of a larger study designed to develop an instrument to determine the factors contributing to librarians' success in research. This presentation highlights similarities and differences in success factors discussed in LIS and other disciplinary publications.La recherche est une responsabilité professionnelle pour de nombreux bibliothécaires universitaires. Certains sont de bons chercheurs; d'autres luttent pour être productifs. Cette analyse de contenu fait partie d'une étude plus large visant à élaborer un instrument permettant de déterminer les facteurs qui contribuent à la réussite des bibliothécaires dans la recherche. Cette présentation met en lumière les similarités et les différences dans les facteurs de réussite tels qu’ils sont discutés dans les publications spécialisées en sciences de l’information et bibliothéconomie et dans d’autres publications disciplinaires.
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 | 0.028 | 0.180 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; 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".