CHLA Standards for Library and Information Services in Canadian Health & Social Services Institutions 2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following standards, with supporting evidence, are intended to serve as a guide to structuring minimum library services within health and social services institutions across all Canadian provinces and territories. The Standards are not intended to be aspirational. The aim of the Task Force was to ensure that the Standards update would not be so removed from the current realities and landscape that they became unattainable to many libraries. For this reason, some Standards outline requirements that are essential to the minimum function of the library, and other Standards provide recommendations only. The intended use of the Standards is to set a baseline for the provision of essential library services and resources and aid in advocating for adequate resources. It is important to note, however, that the Task Force does not intend for the Standards to prevent libraries from reaching a more advanced level of service, and we hope that in their current form they will not be a hindrance to excellence or innovation. Once published, the version of the Standards made freely available on the Canada Health Libraries Association website [1] shall henceforth and always be considered the most recent and active version of the Standards and is the version that should be used to inform practice. The Standards Standing Committee will institute a regular review and updating schedule, ensuring the currency of the Standards.
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 | 0.048 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.024 |
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".