“You Need to Make it as Easy as Possible for Me”: Creating Scholarly Communication Reports for Liaison Librarians
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
INTRODUCTION The typical trifecta of liaison librarian positions (collections, reference, and teaching) is shifting to include additional skillsets and competencies, particularly scholarly communications. While liaison librarians adapt to these changing roles, the question of how to upskill and train liaison librarians in scholarly communications is timely and still in flux. The lack of time required to improve these competencies and skills is an oft-cited challenge. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT To address the challenge of lack of time, this article describes a pilot project undertaken with the aid of a Master of Information Studies practicum student to create scholarly communications reports for liaison librarians. These reports provide background knowledge and discipline-specific information about the scholarly communications landscape, particularly within the institutional context. The goal of the reports is to provide liaison librarians with greater contextual knowledge of their disciplines and the publishing patterns within their departments. This article will discuss the methodology behind creating these reports as well as feedback from liaison librarians on their relevance and potential use. NEXT STEPS The initial pilot was promising, however using a practicum student to create such reports may not be sustainable. Other possibilities include holding “research report retreats” for liaisonlibrarians to complete their own reports with a scholarly communications expert on hand. Additionally, institutions without a master’s program in library and information studies could consider the creation and updating of such reports as a backup project for existing fulltime or student staff.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.042 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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