Everyday Evidence-Based Practice in Academic Libraries: Case Studies and Reflections, Claire Walker Wiley, Amanda B. Click, and Meggan Houlihan (eds.), Association of College & Research Libraries, 2023. 376p. Softcover, $84.00. 9780838939857.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Everyday Evidence-Based Practice in the Academic Library: Case Studies and Reflections , edited by Claire Walker Wiley, Amanda Click, and Meggan Houlihan, builds on the framework developed by Denise Koufogiannakis and Alison Brettle in Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice . This edited collection emphasizes the importance of incorporating evidence-based practice (EBP) into daily academic library functions and seeks to present practices across various departments that can be adapted to fit the needs of different institutions. Readers of this edited collection can choose to read the whole book or decide to utilize chapters that are relevant to their professional or institutional needs. The collection is well thought out, and the inclusion of a wide variety of academic institutions and their experiences with EBP is one of the highlights of this volume.
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 | 0.031 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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".