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 OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.117
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1170.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.022
Open science0.0310.074
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.030

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