MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921518451 · doi:10.18438/eblip29448

Relevance of a French National Database Dedicated to Infection Prevention and Control (NosoBase®): A Three-Step Quality Evaluation of a Specialized Bibliographic Database

2019· article· en· W2921518451 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kae Ting Trouilloud, Nathalie Sanlaville, Sandrine Yvars, Anne Savey

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationScope (computer science)Relevance (law)Quality (philosophy)UsabilityStrengths and weaknessesBibliographic databaseComputer scienceControl (management)Grey literatureDatabaseWorld Wide WebMEDLINEPolitical sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective – NosoBase® is a collection of documentation centres with a national bibliographic database dedicated to infection prevention and control (IPC), with over 20 years of experience in France. As a quality assurance activity, this study was conducted in 2017 with a three-step approach to evaluate the bibliographic database regarding (1) the availability and coverage of citations; (2) the scope and relevance of content; and (3) the quality of the documentation centre services. Methods – The three-step quality approach involved (1) evaluating the availability and coverage of citations in NosoBase® by searching for the bibliographic citations of three systematic reviews on hand hygiene practices, published recently in three different peer-reviewed international journals; (2) evaluating the scope and relevance of content in NosoBase® by searching for all documents from 2015 indexed in NosoBase® under hand hygiene related keywords, and analyzing according to publication language, document type (e.g., legislation, research, or guidelines), and target audience; and 3) evaluating the strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities of the documentation centre services, with interviews involving the librarians. Results – NosoBase® contained 70.8%-80.9% of references directly concerning hand hygiene cited by the three systematic reviews. Of the 200 articles indexed in NosoBase® under hand hygiene related keywords in 2015, 22.5% were French language based, with a significant representation of French non-indexed literature. The analysis of the documentation centre services highlighted future opportunities for growth, building on the strengths of experience and collaborations, to improve marketing and usability, targeting francophone IPC professionals. Conclusion – Specialized bibliographic databases may be useful and time efficient for the retrieval of relevant specialized content. NosoBase® has significant relevance to French and francophone healthcare professionals in its representation of French documentation and healthcare literature not otherwise indexed internationally. NosoBase® needs to highlight its resources and adapt its services to allow easier access to its content.

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)0.427
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.656
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4270.656
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0500.044
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0160.006
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.360 · 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.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207