Improving the school library for IB students: a case study at The British International School, Jakarta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The background of this research is firstly to evaluate the current services and facilities in the secondary library since there is a plan to extend the library building among the school projects. The outcomes of this research would be good feedback for the library staff to improve its services and facilities. Secondly, some colleagues on ECIS listserv have been discussing the need for IB guidelines especially for those who due to commence the library for IB programme This paper is not intended to be a guideline, but a sharing work to those who are concerned with the IB library to find different perspectives from a secondary school library at The British International School, Jakarta. A survey to gain feedback has been conducted using a qualitative method. The findings and the profile of the library are discussed in the same section to help the reader understand the real situation and the feedback from the respondents. This paper, expectantly, would be a valuable reference for any school libraries particularly those who run or plan to have a library for the IB Diploma programme.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".