MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2285239090 · doi:10.18438/b89g6n

Rehabilitating the Stroke Collection

2006· article· en· W2285239090 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth Education and Validation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollection developmentScope (computer science)Data collectionInterlibrary loanSubject (documents)Medical educationLibrary scienceDocumentationMedicineComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective - The aim of this project was to complete an analysis of monograph and audiovisual items held in the Central Coast Health Service (CCHS) Libraries and containing information relevant to the treatment of acute stroke. Acute stroke is treated by multidisciplinary teams of clinicians based at two hospitals within the CCHS. The adequacy of the library collection was measured by subject coverage and age.
 
 Methods - The methodology used consisted of three main steps: a literature review; design, administration, and analysis of a questionnaire to members of the CCHS Acute Stroke Team; and an analysis of the libraries’ collections. The research project utilised project management methodology and an evidence based librarianship framework.
 
 Results - The questionnaire revealed that electronic resources were by far the most frequently used by participants, followed in order by print journals, books, interlibrary loan articles, and audiovisual items. Collection analysis demonstrated that the monograph and audiovisual collections were adequate in both scope and currency to support the information needs of Acute Stroke Team members, with the exception of resources to support patient education.
 
 Conclusion - The researchers developed recommendations for future collection development in the area of acute stroke resources. Conducting this project within the evidence based librarianship framework helped to develop library staff members’ confidence in their ability to make future collection development decisions, informed by the target group’s information needs and preferences. The collection analysis methodology was designed to be replicated, and new specialist groups within the client base of the library will be targeted to repeat the collection analysis process.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.128
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.320 · 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