Health information professionals: delivering core services and value in extraordinary times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2020 virtual issue of the Health Information and Libraries Journal (HILJ) is published to link to the CILIP Health Libraries Group Conference which was to take place in Scotland 22-25th July. Whilst the conference was postponed in light of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, its themes of (i) Working in Partnership; (ii) Resilience and Well-being; (iii) Public and Patient involvement; (iv) Quality Impact and Metrics; and (v) Improvement and Innovation have nevertheless provided the basis on which to compile this virtual issue. Overarching these themes is a core value of the HIL profession, to provide relevant, timely and sustainable information services, and the articles selected from HILJ (2018 through to March 2020) contribute to the aim of meeting and going beyond these goals under the conference banner of 'not your average day in the office'. The virtual issue mirrors the format of a regular issue of HILJ, a review article, four original articles and three from our regular features: 'Dissertations into Practice', 'International Perspectives and Initiatives' and 'Teaching and Learning in Action'. The authors come from Canada, China, Croatia, Sweden and the UK. All articles included in this issue are available online.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".