Preferred but not Required: Examining Research Data Management Roles in Health Science Librarian Positions
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
Introduction: Research data management (RDM) is being recognized as an increasingly important role for librarians. In this paper, the role of health science librarians in supporting research data management endeavors is examined.
 Methods: All job postings currently (as of April 5th, 2018) available on the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Information (iSchool) job site were analyzed to identify positions related to health science librarianship. The job responsibilities and descriptions were then examined to identify instances where research data management was mentioned.
 Results: Thirty-two postings from the search results were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. Of these thirty-two health science librarian postings which were included in the analysis, eight included supporting research data management services, in some capacity, as part of the position description.
 Discussion/ Conclusion: Through the job posting analysis, a picture emerges where RDM is not consistently seen as a role for health science librarians. However, the literature indicates that in many instances, research data management is already being done by health science librarians, and is a trend which is likely to continue in the future. As such, it is important that research data management services start being acknowledged and reflected in education and job description opportunities.
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 | 0.061 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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