Effect of Library Advocacy on Mendeley User Adoption and Productivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Millions of researchers and students currently use Mendeley.com, a free reference manager and one of the largest academic collaboration networks, to support them in reading, writing, collaboration, and publishing processes. Mendeley is an easy‐to‐use reference management tool with only self‐help online tools available for researchers. However, in the last two years, with its integration with Elsevier, it has made available more varied support resources for new users. It is widely believed to be more effective to provide structured support for early career researchers versus just‐in‐time support for seasoned researchers; and structured support for STEM disciplines versus just‐in‐time for non‐STEM disciplines. This study first defines the baseline differences in user adoption and productivity rates between different disciplines (STEM versus non‐STEM users) and academic statuses (undergraduates, graduates, post‐docs, professors). Then, by applying different library resources (in‐person training sessions, help aid, tutorial video, and on demand support) in selected US institutions, this project attempts to understand the effects of different support resources to eventual user adoption and productivity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".