Use, Perceptions, and Awareness of LibGuides among Undergraduate and Graduate Health Professions Students
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
Abstract Objective – This study investigated usage, perceptions, and awareness of library research guides created using Springshare’s LibGuides among undergraduate and graduate health professions students. Methods – The researchers recruited 100 health professions students in April 2017 from Hunter College, a senior college within the City University of New York system. Participants were asked to complete a paper survey to ascertain their use, perceptions, and awareness of Springhare’s LibGuides. Results – Nearly two-thirds of study participants were not aware of library-created LibGuides and 68% had never used this tool. Compared to undergraduates, graduate students were more likely to be aware of LibGuides. The use of LibGuides was higher among graduate respondents (43%) than their undergraduate counterparts (30%). The study found low awareness and use of LibGuides among health professions students overall, regardless of age, gender, academic level, and health sciences concentration. Physical therapy students were more likely to use and be familiar with LibGuides than nursing, medical laboratory sciences, and speech-language pathology and audiology students. Participants reported using general subject guides more than course-specific guides, and the most commonly used page was the Databases guide. Of those participants who had used LibGuides, the vast majority (97%) said they found them useful in their studies. Conclusion – This study demonstrates low usage and awareness of LibGuides among health professions students at a large urban public college. Findings suggest a need for academic libraries serving such students to develop and implement strategies to promote awareness and increase usage of online research guides. The researchers recommend instructing with LibGuides during information literacy sessions and demonstrating their usefulness during reference consultations. Additional strategies include linking LibGuides to course sites through learning management systems such as Blackboard and collaborating with faculty members to better inform students about the guides.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.288 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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