MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214813513 · doi:10.5860/crl.83.2.314

An Exploration of Business Librarian Participation in Knowledge Synthesis Reviews

2022· article· en· W4214813513 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCollege & Research Libraries · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge managementKnowledge creationService (business)BusinessComputer scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Systematic reviews and other forms of knowledge synthesis are increasingly common in the social sciences, including in business and management research. We surveyed academic business librarians to determine the extent of their involvement, in any capacity, in knowledge syntheses. Of 71 eligible responses, 30 percent were involved in supporting knowledge synthesis, while others expressed an awareness of and interest in knowledge synthesis methods and have participated in training opportunities to support these types of projects in the future. While still nascent, knowledge synthesis support by business librarians presents potential as a new service area providing opportunities for deep engagement with faculty research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.017
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.353
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.057 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it