MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

RESEARCH TRENDS IN INFORMATION LITERACY: A BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY

2007· article· en· W1531664550 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueE-LIS Repository (University of Naples Federico II) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBibliometricsPresentation (obstetrics)Information literacyField (mathematics)Library scienceComputer scienceQuarter (Canadian coin)LiteracyTrend analysisData scienceRegional scienceInformation retrievalSociologyPolitical scienceHistoryLawMathematicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Presents a bibliometric analysis of scientific output in the area of ‘Information Literacy’(IL), the aim being to offer an overview of research trends in this field and characterize its most important aspects and their evolution over the last quarter of the 20th century. The analysis makes use of LISA Plus database, the search being restricted to published journal articles and which contain the terms ‘Information Literacy’. The various analyses focus on the presentation of publications, frequencies and percentages, as well as the application of Bradford’s law of scattering and Lotka’s law.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0240.071
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.024
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it