An Environmental Scan of Bibliometrics and Research Impact Open Instructional Trends at Canadian Academic Research Libraries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While bibliometrics have been used for years in academia, recent conversations into their responsible use have driven a need for greater understanding of bibliometrics and research impact within the academic community. Academic librarians are ideal individuals to contribute to instruction on bibliometrics, as they are already embedded within their academic community’s scholarly processes and are often familiar with relevant tools and their functions. The purpose of this environmental scan was to evaluate the current state of open instructional materials for bibliometrics and research impact at the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) academic member institutions. An environmental scan of research guides was chosen as a methodology for this study. Results of this scan identify that 97% (28/29) of CARL academic member institutions held at least one research guide related to bibliometrics and research impact, in a total of 56 guides reviewed. A keyword analysis revealed that of the guides reviewed, keywords related to tools and methodologies of bibliometrics and research impact were discussed at the highest frequency (present within 96% of guides), while keywords related to responsible and alternative metrics were discussed at lowest frequency (present within 38% of guides). Results of this article will benefit 1) practicing librarians who are creating or updating their own bibliometrics and research impact guides or developing library instruction on related topics and 2) strategic planning and governance within academic institutions and more broadly at the national level by revealing trends in bibliometrics and research impact services and resources in the Canadian context.
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 | 0.070 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.494 | 0.394 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".