CHLA 2024 Conference Interactive Workshops / ABSC Congrès 2024 Ateliers Interactifs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Everyone is welcome at this interactive but self-directed session.Participants who have in-progress projects, can go directly to the appropriate table.Participants, who have ideas but remain unsure about whether they should do a project, could spend the time determining feasibility of a program or project.This session provides attendees with a self-directed opportunity to spend time in a distraction reduced environment, which facilitates completing or making progress on a new or existing project or program.Attendees can complete one or more of the following activities in the 75-minute session: (1) Idea Exchange, (2) Keeping up with the Literature/Literature Search, (3) Peer Review, and (4) Write, Write, Write. IW2. Organizing for power in your health sciences library: a workshop to utilize labour organizing techniques to engage with health library patrons, and advocate for library workers Orvie Dingwall University of ManitobaHealth libraries utilize a wide variety of promotion strategies to reach the broad spectrum of health professionals, faculty, and students who use their services and resources.The tools and strategies of renowned labour and community organizer Jane McAlevey can be applied to identifying, and building strong relationships with, health library patrons.These tools and strategies can also be used by health information professionals interested in advocating for library workers within their union, faculty associations, and the larger library community, to improve working conditions and advocate for social justice.Using health library case examples, workshop participants will learn how to use organizing techniques, such as mapping and charting, to systematically identify and engage health library patrons.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.790 | 0.560 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".