MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010021691 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/3se47

Health sciences librarians' support of researchers and engagement in open science: a scoping review (protocol)

2020· review· en· W3010021691 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Read, Ariel Deardorff, Lisa Federer, Dean Giustini, Melissa L. Rethlefsen

Bibliographic record

VenueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)Open scienceHealth scienceData scienceEngineering ethicsComputer scienceMedical educationLibrary scienceMedicineEngineeringAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a scoping review of health sciences librarians' engagement in open science. It includes advancing OS practices and principles among researchers and students in biomedicine but beyond OS in libraries to include HSL participation in policy development and strategic initiatives locally, nationally and internationally.

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)0.179
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.253
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1790.253
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.009
Bibliometrics0.0190.017
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0100.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.011

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 head0.302
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreProtocol

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)Same topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207