Essential services of clinical librarians in academic and health care settings: A cross-sectional study: Postprint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides a comprehensive summary of clinical librarian service models in the US, Canada, and the UK from a cross-sectional study. An online survey received 182 responses from clinical librarians in hospital (62%), academic (26%), and other (10%) libraries. These clinical librarians shared the services they provide, patrons they work with, and their perceptions of the value they add to clinical environments. Overall, this study quantifies the services offered most frequently by clinical librarians, the services felt to be most valuable, and the variety of health care clientele whom clinical librarians serve. These findings have implications for current clinical librarians, libraries and health care institutions, and for those who may become clinical librarians in the future. The version of record is published in Medical Reference Services Quarterly, Volume 40, Issue 2, 2021 and is available at the following URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02763869.2021.1912570
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".