Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Evidence Summaries in this issue take a very broad view of information access and retrieval.Koufogiannakis et al. (2004) define this domain of librarianship as "Creating better systems and methods for information retrieval and access" (p.233), but these Evidence Summaries expand the scope a little to include information seeking behavior as an important indicator of how our spaces, services, and systems need to function to enable access.Barriers to access can have deep roots.Prince reviews a study of a public library system that reveals the impact of historical and ongoing systemic inequities on children's access to library spaces and materials.Information cannot be accessed if it does not exist.This is an issue highlighted in the study appraised by Shen that explores the challenges of accessing accurate breast cancer information for transgender and gender non-conforming populations.Understanding information seeking behaviour is essential if we are to improve access.Fena and Jasmin review two different studies on information seeking behaviour, one focused on 2SLGBTQ+ students and the other on older adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.577 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads 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".