“How Do I Do That?” A Literature Review of Research Data Management Skill Gaps of Canadian Health Sciences Information Professionals
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
Abstract: There is a recognized need to provide research data management (RDM) services in health sciences libraries. A review of the literature reveals numerous strategies to provide training for health sciences librarians as they provide RDM services to health sciences researchers, faculty, and students. However, no consensus emerges through this literature review with respect to RDM training initiatives. With training initiatives being developed and documented, more in-depth research will emerge that verifies which initiatives have the greatest success for upskilling information professionals in managing research data. This is an area where future library and information studies research can be conducted. It is the hope that with this literature review, I can conduct my own survey to gain more perspective on RDM in a Canadian health sciences library context.
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 | 0.069 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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