Mediating the ‘Digital Health Divide’: A Role for Public Libraries?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preliminary findings are reported on a study of health information seeking in public libraries. The study’s objectives are to identify how public libraries fit into people’s information landscapes, identify challenges in supporting users in health information seeking, and contribute to the debate about the role public libraries can play in promoting healthy communities.Les résultats préliminaires d’une étude sur la recherche d’information dans le domaine de la santé dans les bibliothèques publiques sont présentés. Cette étude a pour objectifs d’identifier la manière dont les bibliothèques publiques s’ajustent à la perspective informationnelle des individus ; de mettre en relief les défis rencontrés pour soutenir les individus dans la recherche d’information sur la santé ; et de participer au débat sur le rôle que les bibliothèques publiques peuvent jouer dans la promotion des communautés en santé.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.002 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".