Understanding EBLIP at an Organizational Level: An Initial Maturity Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective - Existing research around evidence based practice in the LIS (library and information science) professional context over the past two decades has captured the experience of individual practitioners, rather than the organization as a whole. Current models of evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP) relate to, and apply predominantly to, individuals or specific scenarios. Yet despite a growing demand from institutional and library leaders for evidence to demonstrate why investments in libraries should continue, little is known about how an organization can enhance its maturity in evidence based practice. This paper addresses this gap by seeking to understand what an evidence based university library looks like and answering the questions: how does a university library leader know the library’s service and practice is evidence based? How can a university library measure and progress its maturity in evidence based practice? Methods - Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with library professionals employed at Australian and New Zealand university libraries. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis techniques. The interviews, combined with a literature review and environmental scan of evidence based practices in university libraries, informed the development of a draft capability maturity model as a framework for developing evidence based practice in university libraries. Results - The model identifies and describes characteristics at five different levels of evidence based practice maturity from least mature (Ad hoc/Sporadic) to most mature (Transforming). Three dimensions of experience help to define the characteristics at each level of maturity and provide a framework to understand how a university library might develop its organizational capacity in evidence based library and information practice. Conclusion - Library leaders and practitioners will benefit from the model as they seek to identify and build upon their evidence based practice maturity, enabling more robust decision-making, a deeper understanding of their clients and demonstration of value and impact to their stakeholders.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".