MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2320368462 · doi:10.3172/jie.21.2.33

"I Guess We'll Just Have to Wait for the Movie to Come Out"

2012· article· en· W2320368462 sur OpenAlex

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.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Information Ethics · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLibrary Science and Administration
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésComputer scienceMedia studiesSociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Red tape is excessive regulation or rigid conformity to formal rules that is considered redundant or bureaucratic and hinders or prevents action or decision-making. It is usually applied to governments, corporations and other large organizations.-WikipediaThe first gathering of members of the International Center for Information (ICIE), organized by founder Dr. Rafael Capurro, occurred in Karlsruhe, Germany in fall 2004. While there, a loosely formed subgroup of North American library and information studies (LIS) professors (including Dr. Elizabeth Buchanan, Dr. Tom Froehlich, Dr. Martha [Marti] Smith, Dr. Wallace [Wally] Koehler, Dr. Johannes [Hannes] Britz, Dr. Toni Carbo, and Dr. Toni Samek) spoke impromptu about creating a teaching and learning venue for information ethics within the context of the library and information studies community back home. Almost immediately, a plan was set in motion to develop a grassroots contribution to the imminent ALISE annual conference in Boston. This collective effort resulted in a January 2005 conference panel, Activism in the Context of Information Ethics, delivered by Dr. Marti Smith (Drexel University), Dr. Toni Carbo (University of Pittsburgh), Dr. Pnina Shachaf (University of Indiana-Bloomington), and Dr. Toni Samek (University of Alberta).In late February 2005, Samek posted the following message to the JESSE listserv (a popular communications tool for library and information studies educators with a heavy concentration of North American subscribers): Since the conference in Boston, a number of us have communicated by e-mail about creating a new SIG on Information to serve as a kind of partner to the newly minted SIG on Information Policy. In order to formally propose a new SIG on Information to the ALISE Board (which next meets in April), a minimum of 25 association members must endorse the proposal. ... The idea behind the proposed SIG on Information is to give critical attention to 'ethical reflection' in the context of LIS education. At this point in our history, there is a real interest in creating a consistent formal dedicated space in the [ALISE] conference program for information ethics and related areas such as core values, the global information justice movement, human rights and information work, and so on.1 The listserv post was forwarded to the ALISE members' list and a series of responses ensued, beginning with comments from Dr. Lynn Connaway, who wrote from the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC): endorse a SIG on Information Ethics. When I taught the Foundations course at the University of Denver, the majority of the class was spent discussing ethics in regard to information policy.2 Charles Harmon (Director of Publishing, Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc. New York) wrote: Please list me as an ALISE member in support of this SIG. I chaired the American Library Assoc. Committee on Professional for four years and believe ethics is an imperative area for LIS education.3 The full set of replies served to form a picture illustrating the growing presence of information ethics educators and education in the LIS context. For example: Please include my name in support of the new SIG. In regards to courses on ethics and information, [the] UCLA LIS school just introduced a new and required! course in their program on this topic. This was made possible through the grassroots work of students and several faculty members spearheaded by Clara Chu.4Both teachers and students expressed their desire to engage in a community of information ethics. For example: am teaching a course called Ethics and Critical Thinking for Information Professionals for the first time ever during our interim session. I would welcome and participate in discussions in this arena.5 And Bringing information ethics into almost every aspect of the curriculum, as opposed to making it an easily avoided elective, would go a long way to exposing students across all of the various programs-informatics, MLIS, information management, doctoral-to the challenges of information ethics in today's society. …

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,929
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,451

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,006
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,191
Tête enseignante GPT0,428
Écart entre enseignants0,237 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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