Revisiting Instructional Approaches in Response to Emerging Cataloging Standards
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
The ever-shifting landscape of cataloging standards over the last decade has kept library and information science (LIS) educators on their toes, and continuing developments only promise to maintain this trend. Examples include the publication of the International Federation of Library Association & Institution’s (IFLA’s) conceptual model Library Reference Model (LRM) in 2017, the release of the new and heavily revised version of the cataloging content standard Resource Description and Access (RDA) in 2020, and Library of Congress’ upcoming Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME) standard for encoding and publishing library data. These new standards have altered the way in which cataloging work is conceived and discussed, radically changed the interfaces used for accessing cataloging documentation, and are now spurring the creation of new software and tools for cataloging work, including Library of Congress’ new Marva metadata editor. At the same time, the increasing inclusion of linked data projects in libraries, archives, and other cultural heritage institutions are requiring new skills, practices, and workflows that cataloging and metadata librarians must be prepared for. With many of these standards and initiatives not fully implemented in the majority of libraries, cataloging educators face a dilemma in deciding how best to prepare their students to successfully navigate this time of change, where old and new standards and practices intersect.
 The Technical Services Education SIG session will include a panel of three educators (two of whom are current cataloging practitioners) with unique perspectives on strategies for teaching toward emerging cataloging standards. After brief presentations by each of the panelists, audience members will be encouraged to ask questions and offer their own experiences and ideas concerning this area of LIS education.
 This conversation aligns well with the ALISE conference theme of “Go Back and Get It: From One Narrative to Many” as cataloging practice and education must be in constant dialogue about the preparation of LIS students for the lifespan of their careers. How can LIS educators prepare students for an environment in which different institutions are facing drastically different plans and timelines for the implementation of new standards? How can teaching practices be adjusted to best leverage current best practices alongside new strategies? And how can study of past, present, and emerging cataloging standards and practices provide a solid foundation on which LIS students can build throughout their careers? This panel will offer opportunities for LIS educators to reach back to knowledge and experiences concerning previous standards transitions, share best practices for addressing the current, dynamic environment, and look toward the future of cataloging and metadata education and preparation.
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 | 0,002 | 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| 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