Practical and scholarly implications of information behaviour research: a pilot study of research literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. This pilot study examined how current information behaviour research addresses the implications and potential impacts of its findings. The goal was to understand what implications and contributions the field has made and how effectively authors communicate implications of their findings. Methods. We conducted a content analysis of 30 randomly selected refereed research papers on information behaviour published between 2008 and 2012 in the U.S. and Canada. Analysis. Analysed elements included journal, year, author affiliation, types of implications, theory, methodology, context and scope of implications, location of implications, intended audience, beneficiaries, and future research. Results. Twenty-three papers offered practical implications; seven included both practical and scholarly implications. Only eight papers referenced theory and of these, only three generated theoretical implications. Seventy percent of studies discussed practical implications for librarians and archivists. Implications were often contextbound in that they related to a particular group or environment. Conclusion. The impact of information behaviour research encompasses a range of areas. A stronger relationship
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 | 0.037 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.097 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".