An environmental scan of librarian involvement in systematic reviews and scoping reviews at the University of Ottawa: A protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last 10 years, there has been an upward trend in the number of requests for collaborations with librarians on knowledge synthesis projects at the University of Ottawa. These requests have occurred mostly in the disciplines of health sciences and medicine, but have also increased in education, psychology, management, and social sciences. To better understand the workload experienced by the uOttawa Library team and the institutional visibility of this labour, we seek to: a) better understand the volume of reviews being published by the University of Ottawa and the change over time; b) understand to what extent librarians have been involved in published reviews over time; and c) better understand the breakdown of publications by discipline and affiliated institutions.
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 | 0.199 | 0.321 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.034 | 0.039 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.016 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".