MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2600067662 · doi:10.18438/b8b05r

Literature Suggests Information Professionals Have Adopted New Roles

2017· article· en· W2600067662 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robin Elizabeth Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Science and Information
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital libraryScopusLibrary scienceSystematic reviewMedical libraryInformation scienceMEDLINEGrey literatureIndex (typography)Computer scienceWeb of scienceWorld Wide WebInformation retrievalPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Review of: Vassilakaki, E. & Moniarou-Papaconstantinou, V. (2015). A systematic literature review informing library and information professionals’ emerging roles. New Library World, 116(1/2), 37-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/NLW-05-2014-0060 Abstract Objective – To provide a systematic review of the emerging or newly adopted roles of information professionals, over the past 14 years, as described in the Library and Information Science (LIS) professional literature. Design – Systematic review of the literature. Setting – Databases featuring information science content, including ACM Digital Library, Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts (LISTA), Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA), Citeseer, Google Scholar, e-prints in Library and Information Science (e-LiS), Digital Library of Information Science and Technology (DLIST), Scopus, and Science Direct. The database Library Literature & Information Science Index was not included. Subjects – Through a systematic literature search, the authors identified 114 peer-reviewed studies published between 2000-2014. Methods – The authors searched selected databases using the terms “librarian/s role” and “information professional/s role” to collect literature about the roles of information professionals. The authors searched the selected databases in two phases. The initial search yielded 600 search results and the authors included 100 articles about “roles” information professionals have adopted. The authors excluded articles focused on specific positions, health and medical libraries, librarians’ professional skills, and development of specific programs or initiatives within libraries. In the second phase of searching, the authors refined search terms to include phrases specifically related to the roles identified in the 100 articles initially included in the review. There were 48 articles identified in the second search and 14 were included in the final pool of articles. The authors also cross-checked the references of all included literature. Main Results – The authors identified six roles of information professionals described in the literature during the review period. The role of “embedded librarian” was described in the largest number of articles (42%), followed by “librarian as teacher” (20%), “knowledge manager” (20%), “technology specialist” (9%), “subject librarian” (6%), and “information consultant” (3%). The study did not identify a dominant journal title or professional conference publishing research on information professionals’ roles. Some included literature reported a specific method for investigation, including questionnaires, content analyses, and mixed methods. However, the researchers report that the majority of articles represented personal views or perceptions of the authors. Conclusion – The roles of information professionals are continually changing, both in practice and in description. In particular, information professionals expanded their roles in teaching during the review period, shedding light on institutional and professional priorities.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.125
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.125
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.022
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.254 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicLibrary Science and InformationFrench-language works237,207