MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312348722 · doi:10.18438/b8931z

EBLIP5 Call for Papers

2008· paratext· en· W4312348722 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2008
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridging (networking)Library scienceInformation literacyPublic relationsProfessional developmentSociologyPolitical scienceMedical educationMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The International Programme Committee for the 5th International Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (EBLIP5) Conference invites you to submit oral presentations and posters for the conference, Bridging the Gap, to be held in Stockholm, Sweden from 29 June – 3 July 2009. We seek to build on the success of past conferences by including more disciplines, more sectors, more countries and more professional roles than ever before! The International Programme Committee for EBLIP5 invites research papers, reports of innovative practice and hot topic discussion papers. Key themes include, but are by no means limited to, the following: Bridging the gap…the Who? • ...between disciplines - communications and information studies; health and social care • ...between sectors - public and private sectors; health library sector/wider library information service sectors including academic, public, and special libraries; archivists and local libraries and collections • ...between cultures - developed and developing world; librarianship cultures; English speaking/other speaking countries Bridging the gap…the What? • ...the “implementation gap” - principles and practice; research/practice; research/policy; experiment/implementation; tradition/innovation; innovation and disinvestment; reflection and action, knowledge/action; personal learning to professional practice • ...the “expectation gap” - library services and user needs; the e-generation and the physical library • ...the “experimentation gap” – data and results; R&D and EBLIP; information seeking research/information literacy teaching; implementation and evaluation • ...the “skills gap” – practitioner knowledge and skills; librarians and research skills; leadership and implementation Bridging the gap…the How? • ...using marketing/advocacy • ...using data mining and management tools • ...through collaborative working (with teachers, with academics) • ...through communication (internal and external) • ...through management support and leadership • ...through international co-operation Abstract submission for oral presentations and posters is by e-mail to EBLIP5@kib.ki.se. Important dates: • Abstracts to be submitted by 31 October 2008. • Notification of acceptance will be received by 31 January 2009. • Confirmation of participation by mid-February 2009. • Registration opens in March 2009. • Deadline for submission of full papers - June 2009. See the conference video at .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0200.009
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0140.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.8510.793

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207