MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2302194024 · doi:10.1071/ah010156

Hospital patient libraries andinformation services in Australia

2001· article· en· W2302194024 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brigitte Glockner

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Health Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealthwise
KeywordsProject commissioningService (business)Library sciencePublishingGovernment (linguistics)Order (exchange)National libraryMedicineBusinessPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to find out how many and what kind of Hospital Patient Libraries exist in Australia I placed a "Request for Information" on our national electronic discussion list entitled 'aliaHealth'. This discussion list has presently nearly 300 subscribers. Most of them are located in Australia, but they also come from Canada, Germany, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. The e-mail address for 'aliaHealth' is: aliaHealth@alianet.alia.org.au. The result of my enquiry was rather poor: there are three Hospital Patient Libraries in Western Australia, one in Queensland and two in Victoria. The criterion was that the Library or Patient Information Service had to be located within the Hospital grounds. The six Libraries or Information Services are described in detail.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.309 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Health ReviewSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207