Welcome to Library and Information Science
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This paper enacts the following scenario: At an orientation session for a library and information science (LIS) program, an educator gives incoming students a brief address entitled Welcome to Library and Information Science. Three versions of that talk are offered here, drawn from seminal works by Shera (1973a), White (1992), and Bates (1999). In turn, each author is introduced, the historical and literary context of the article is noted, and then its unique characterization of LIS is presented in a spoken rhetorical style. three disquisitions are followed by discussion questions designed to engage newcomers and observations on the pedagogical strengths and weaknesses of each paper. A conclusion crystallizes each work's conception of library and information science as a unified domain. Readers who are educators will benefit from refreshers in these foundational writings and learn new communication and teaching strategies. Student readers will enjoy succinct and accessible introductions to a troika of major visions for LIS. Keywords: library and information science, intellectual history, disciplinary identity, Jesse H. Shera, Howard D. White, Marcia J. Bates Introduction A debate has been simmering over the past several years concerning the status of library science and information science paradigms within the broad realm of information studies. Gorman (2004) and Crowley (2008) assert that the information science perspective has eclipsed its library counterpart, to the detriment of the discipline and profession. Bonnici, Subramanian, and Burnett (2009) apply a sociological theory of disciplinary change to information studies and conclude that an emerging iField has absorbed the library-oriented sensibility. On a more upbeat note, Dillon and Norris (2005) argue that such controversy marks the entire history of LIS and that the current era is one of unprecedented growth that can benefit all stakeholders. paper at hand does not engage these arguments about disciplinary identity and status directly. Instead, it revisits compelling visions of LIS, as articulated by distinguished contributors in landmark publications. One objective is to remind all parties involved in the debates of interpretations of LIS that are unifying rather than divisive. Another goal is to provide educators with resources, drawn from a rich literature, to welcome newcomers to the field during a period of change. There are many excellent definitional statements about information studies and several are shown in Table 1 . Due to space limitations, criteria were applied to select three as the focus. Each featured paper was required to address the nature of LIS as a whole and in an introductory writing style. format of a journal article or book chapter was favored, which is an appropriate genre to assign to students. Preference was given to a strong, original theme. author had to be an accomplished researcher and educator of LIS with a substantial publication record. three chosen works are: Jesse H. Shera's Toward a Theory of Librarianship and Information Science (1973a), Howard D. White's External Memory (1992), and Marcia J. Bates' The Invisible Substrate of Information Science (1999). research process involved a close reading of the three featured papers. In addition, related writings from the authors' oeuvre and critical commentary on their work were considered, when available. amount of critical commentary on the three papers varied. Since Shera's death in 1982, there has been considerable critical analysis from other scholars. Differently, White and Bates are still active contributors and their work has not been similarly subject to review. However, the work of White and Bates is further illuminated by their own published personal reflections in the forms of a memoir (Bates, 2004), speeches (Bates, 2005; White, 2002), and sundry writings (Engle, 2002; McCain, 2005; White, 2005). …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Étiquettes directes de modèles (non validées)
Étiquettes de catégorie et de devis d'étude par modèle, issues des rondes d'étiquetage. C'est une sortie machine, non validée, et le désaccord entre modèles est livré comme donnée. Aucun devis ici n'est encore validé contre MEDLINE.
| Bras | Catégories | Devis d'étude | Confiance |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | aucune catégorie Domaine: non disponible · Genre: Autre Porte sur le système de recherche canadien: non · Porte sur un sujet canadien: non | Sans objet | low |
| gpt | aucune catégorie Domaine: non disponible · Genre: Éditorial Porte sur le système de recherche canadien: non · Porte sur un sujet canadien: non | Sans objet | medium |
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,544 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle