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
production of this journal is truly a collaborative effort. Authors, referees, column editors, book reviewers, and production staff are all part of this community. Once again, an editorial year has passed by in the blink of an eye. As always, I am indebted to the RUSQ Editorial Advisory Board for their help with shaping content and direction. following individuals contributed many hours this past year through their service on this board: Judith M. Arnold, Gwen Arthur, Corinne Hill, Robert V. Labaree, Jessica E. Moyer, Kjerstine Nielsen, Amber A. Prentiss, Douglas Raber, Marianne Ryan, and Michael Stephens. Since a constant flow of manuscripts kept these board members busy, I am grateful for the willingness of the following experts to step in as needed to serve as occasional referees: Karen Antell, Lori Arp, Christine Avery, Anne Behler, Paula Contreras, Phillip Edwards, Linda Friend, Jennifer Gilley, Nancy Huling, M. Kathleen Kern, Daniel Mack, Charles Malenfant, Dale McNeill, Judith M. Nixon, Eric Novotny, Lisa O'Connor, Mary Popp, Emily Rimland, Kathleen A. Sullivan, Linda C. Smith, Amalia Strothmann, David Tyckoson, Barry Trott, Matthew Wayman, Beth S. Woodard, and Neal Wyatt. feedback to authors from these dedicated reviewers was instrumental in producing a collection of high-quality feature articles. following peer-reviewed feature articles were published in volume 47: Whatever Happened to 'Always Cite the Source?': Study of Source Citing and Other Issues Related to Telephone Reference, by Denise E. Agosto and Holly Anderton. Comparison of Retrieval Performance of Eleven Online Indexes Containing Information Related to Quaternary Research, An Interdisciplinary Science, by Lura E. Joseph. If My Mother Was Alive I'd Probably Have Called Her: Women's Search for Health Information in Rural Canada, by Roma Harris and Nadine Wathen. The Effects of Librarians' Behavioral Performance on User Satisfaction in Chat Services, by Nahyun Kwon and Vicki L. Gregory. Sociocultural Learning Theories and Information Literacy Teaching Activities in Higher Education, by Li Wang. Assessing User Interactions at the Desk Nearest the Front Door, by Pixey Anne Mosley. Determining Use of an Academic Library Collection: Report of a Study, by Jeannie Colson. Reference Transaction Handoffs: Factors Affecting the Transition from Chat to E-Mail, by Nora Wikoff. Cyberface or Face-to-Face: Teachable Moment and Changing Mediums, by Christine M. Desai and Stephanie J. Graves. Weeding Gone Wild: Planning and Implementing a Review of the Collection, by Carol A. Singer. 'But I Want a Real Book': An Investigation of Undergraduates' Usage and Attitudes toward Electronic Books, by Cynthia L. Gregory. A Generation in Transition: Study of the Usage and Attitudes toward Public Libraries by Generation 1.5 Composition Students, by Curt Asher and Emerson Case. Why Isn't Our Chat Used More?: Findings of Focus Group Discussions with Undergraduate Students, by Sharon Naylor, Bruce Stoffel, and Sharon Van Der Laan. Strategic Planning for in a Team Environment: Preferred Futuring Model, by Shahla Bahavar and Judy A. Truelson. Testing Classification Systems for Questions, by Deborah B. Henry and Tina M. Neville. It's All in the Marketing: Impact of a Virtual Marketing Campaign at Texas & M University, by Karen I. MacDonald, Wyoma vanDuinkerken, and Jane Stephens. Revitalizing the One-shot Instruction Session Using Problem-Based Learning, by Barbara Ferret Kenney. I am pleased that two issues of volume 47 contained editorials focusing on graduate programs in library and information science. Lisa O'Connor's thought provoking guest editorial, Nice Shoes, is written from the perspective of a practitioner who made the transition to library school educator. …
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.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,014 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
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