Publication rate of presentation abstracts presented at the Canadian Health Libraries Association (CHLA/ABSC) annual meetings from 2004-2009
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to determine the publication rate of Canadian health sciences librarians, post-conference presentation. Discover barriers that prevent librarians from taking conference presentation to full publication. Assess the metrics available to librarians for scholarly output measurement by examining metrics, traditional and altmetrics, of articles resulting from conference presentation. Design/methodology/approach A survey using FluidSurveys was distributed via e-mail to authors of poster and papers presentation presented at Canadian Health Libraries Association/Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada conferences from 2004 to 2009. A literature search for articles matching presentations in National Library of Medicine’s PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts was conducted to determine publication rate. Metrics of retrieved articles were gathered and analyzed to gage scholarly output of Canadian health sciences librarians. Findings A publication rate of 31.5 percent was determined by literature search. Time restriction was the most common reported reason for not publishing. The altmetric analysis included 71 articles, of which 52 percent had at least one value in various metrics, with Mendeley counts being the most common value represented. Research limitations/implications Not all survey respondents may be library science professionals, so that survey findings may not be generalizable to the Canadian health librarian profession. While every effort was made to find and confirm publications related to conference presentations, the reported publication rate may be either an over estimate or under estimate of the true rate. Current altmetric science is very dynamic and evolving. Originality/value This study provides a baseline publication rate, identifies barriers librarians face to publication and provides a glimpse into the state of metrics available to Canadian librarians for evaluation of their scholarly output.
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it