MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312830024 · doi:10.18438/b8d01v

Evidence in Practice Award for UK Librarians

2007· article· en· W4312830024 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Editorial Team

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelegateAttendanceService (business)Public relationsHealth careMedicineMedical educationLibrary scienceNursingPolitical scienceBusinessComputer scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Second Evidence in Practice Award in conjunction with the Third UK Clinical Librarian Conference is now open for entries. We hope to bring together case studies that can be shared and used to persuade decision makers of the value of library and information services. The Second Evidence in Practice Award is sponsored by The National Library for Health and BMJ Group Clinical Evidence. It is open to any library & information professional in the UK who, working with health professionals, has made a difference in patient care. You may be working in any sector (e.g. primary or secondary care, consumer health information) and at any type of health organization (e.g. a professional body or a voluntary organization). Partnerships of information and health professionals are invited to enter the competition by providing a structured abstract, describing (in approximately 750 words) how health information provided by their library or information service has impacted patient care or service delivery. Entries can be submitted up to March 31,2007 after which anonymous case studies will be judged by an independent panel combining clinical and information expertise. The judges’ decision will be final. The winners will each receive a Personal Digital Assistant, financial support towards attendance at a professional conference or course of their choice, plus a free delegate place at the Third Clinical Librarian conference. The award will be presented at the Third UK Clinical Librarian Conference, 11th & 12th June 2007, St William's College, York Minster, where the award winners will have an opportunity to share their example of successful practice. For more details, follow the link from: http://www.uhl-library.nhs.uk/clinlibconf2007.htm or contact Linda Ward Library Services Manager University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Libraries Education Centre Library, LGH, Gwendolen Rd. LE5 4PW. Tel: 0116 2588124 Fax: 0116 2588078 Medical Library, GH, Groby Rd. LE3 9PQ. Tel: 0116 2502303 Fax: 0116 2563334 Email: linda.ward@uhl-tr.nhs.uk or lmw12@le.ac.uk Please take a short while to reflect on how you have made a difference and share it with your professional colleagues. On behalf of the EiP Award / CL conference team.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.832

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0230.008
Open science0.0030.015
Research integrity0.0150.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2490.133

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.338 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207