CHLA 2015 Conference Contributed papers / ABSC Congrés 2014 Communications libres
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Proponents of evidence-informed medicine (EIM) from the 'caring' professions, such as nursing and social work, are increasingly critiquing narrow interpretations of evidence-based practice (EBP).When health science librarians (HSLs) are providing information to users-especially users from these disciplines-they must be aware of these critiques and how they apply to their services.In this project I explore HSLs' strategies for providing good service, especially mediated literature searching service, to nursing and allied health professionals.Methods: Twenty-two HSLs from across Canada who provide service for nurses and allied health professionals were recruited through professional associations and listservs that represent this group.Participants completed a 30 min telephone interview about perceived barriers and strategies to providing 'good service' at their libraries and also responded to three challenging search scenarios.Interviews were transcribed and thematic analysis was performed.Results: The findings indicate that HSLs across Canada have divergent searching practices and strategies for dealing with complex search queries.For example, some HSLs only complete scoping reviews while others have developed non-linear strategies for answering queries that appear to be unsupported by evidence.Discussion: Proponents of EIM value practitioners as creative and imaginative agents, rather than as mechanical practitioners of EBP.HSLs' nuanced strategies for answering complex search queries also allude to their creative and imaginative search practices.These findings underscore the limitations of one size fits all literature searching service and suggest a need for an advanced understanding and application of EBP in health science librarianship.
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.
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 | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 it