MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2281652774

Clinical Librarianship (CL): A Historical perspective

2004· article· en· W2281652774 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Evaliga Lappa

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)HistoryLibrary sciencePolitical scienceEngineering ethicsComputer scienceEngineeringArtVisual arts
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction A number of previous studies have collected data on a hospital’s use of databases and the librarian’s role in the process. These studies express common themes and suggest activities for librarians wishing to promote the use of new technologies. The first theme: While it seems clear that some physicians are competent and satisfied users of new computer search systems, many more, unfortunately, are unaware of the potential time saving features and powerful search capabilities of their search systems. Health sciences librarians have been advocating the use of indexes and abstracts for as long as these products have been available. More than twenty years ago, the National Library of Medicine pioneered online access to the literature with the introduction of Medlars online (Medline). Medline initially consisted of a subset of 236 of the top medical journals indexed in Index Medicus and was viewed as an interesting supplement to manual searching; it now is used routinely as the preferred method of access by thousands of Librarians and health care professionals. Some faculty, though, still rely on the traditional methods of asking a colleague, scanning a personal copy of a journal and, of course, going to the library. Traditionally, CD-ROM systems were only available in the library and doctors and librarians met each other there to discuss problems for searching. The results of a Canadian survey indicated that physicians in Ontario made little use of Libraries because they had no time to search for information beyond that they could obtain quickly from colleagues or from reference material in their own collections. Other studies found that the primary reason of a clear preference for hospital libraries, either medical school or medical society libraries where information was used for both clinical and research purposes, was that the library was the most important place of locating printed sources on which doctors still rely for browsing the literature. Over the past few decades, the role of the medical librarian has become increasingly complex, due to the explosion of information, and the way information is now digitized, libraries are increasingly virtual. Now the additional problem is that clinicians need information but not any information. They need evidence from high quality research. The information is available, but they may have not time to search effectively. To meet their needs, the librarian must adopt the role of going out of the library to meet the clinicians, themselves.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.235
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207