MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2606808169

Roundtable: How Has the Profession Changed since You Graduated?

2016· article· en· W2606808169 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jessica Lange

Notice bibliographique

RevuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLibrary Science and Administration
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPaceLibrary scienceWork (physics)Variety (cybernetics)SociologyPublic relationsPolitical sciencePsychologyComputer scienceEngineering
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Gerald BeasleyHolly HendriganM.J. D'EliaCompiled by Jessica LangeWelcome to the second edition of Roundtable! Roundtable provides an opportunity for librarians to reflect on their own practice and experiences related to a particular question. In light of our 10th anniversary issue, the topic for this issue's Roundtable is How has the profession changed since you graduated? I'm delighted to have three librarians with a variety of experience sharing their thoughts on this topic. Enjoy!Gerald BeasleyVice-Provost (Learning Services) and Chief Librarian, University of AlbertaI believe the library profession has changed as much or more than have since graduated from University College London in the UK in 1985. was fortunate to have excellent instructors in a School of Library, Archives and Information Science who emphasized attitude more than aptitude (although learning the principles of Universal Decimal Classification made every classification scheme subsequently encountered look easy!). Computer science was an option-thank goodness took it-and my submission of a small but exemplary card catalogue now seems embarrassing. Still, believe carry the values that were reinforced at library school into my current work, especially by recognizing that librarianship continues to be about sustaining and developing communities through intelligent access to organized knowledge.Having entered academia after many years of working in professional and special libraries, wish had not seen barriers arise between the various career paths. now think was just lucky. In general, the reward systems for public and special library work do not seem to have kept pace with the compensation and benefits offered to academic librarians, yet believe the work remains comparable at all levels. Disappointingly, our failure to communicate our professional value has meant library work in nearly all sectors has become more precarious.And am dismayed that school libraries are under threat everywhere look, and that volunteers are expected to replace trained professionals in many local libraries in the UK. On the positive side, however, also believe the world has learned a lot from our profession. We are surely the unsung leaders in thinking deeply about the worldwide web, intellectual freedom, open access, and knowledge as the engine for economic and personal growth. The more that commercial interests shape the societies we live in, the more our professional expertise will be valued by those seeking a safe and informed environment for exploration and learning. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose!Holly HendriganLiaison Librarian, Applied Sciences; PI, TechBC Memory Project, Fraser Library, SFU SurreyDouglas Coupland has remarked, in numerous formats, I MISS MY PRE-INTERNET BRAIN. Occasionally, MISS MY PRE-INTERNET LIBRARY. At the very least, feel privileged to have worked in one.I graduated from UBC's library school in 1993, and had the great fortune of securing an auxiliary position in the busy Central branch of the Vancouver Public Library shortly thereafter. These were the final years of a predominantly print-based information marketplace. Granted, VPL's catalogue was automated, and subject divisions held a few databases on CD-ROM, but the pre-internet days were a golden age in which librarians were called upon to provide answers to both in-depth and ready questions from the moment we opened every morning. In order to answer them, we relied heavily on books and maintained our own index card and newspaper clipping files.The index card drawer banks in subject divisions were magnificent. Sub-organized by subject or format, these physical databases contained citations or complete information on a wide range of topics: artists, authors, quotations, quick reference facts and statistics, boat plans, recipes. Some enterprising librarian even created a Collective Noun file, saving future librarians time when asked for the group term for, say, owls (parliament) or monkeys (tribe). …

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,290
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,970

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,017
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0070,002
Communication savante0,0150,009
Science ouverte0,0030,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,2900,209

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 Opus0,184
Tête enseignante GPT0,390
Écart entre enseignants0,206 · 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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and ResearchMême sujetLibrary Science and AdministrationTravaux en français237 207