Untangling the relationship between libraries, young adults and Web 2.0
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper addresses a gap in the analysis of the dynamic and challenging relationship between libraries, Web 2.0 and young adults, suggesting the relevance of a critical approach. Design/methodology/approach This paper represents an exploratory literature review with the objective of identifying a possible gap in the way the library and information science (LIS) community is addressing the concept of Web 2.0. Findings Findings indicate that the research produced in other fields, such as communication or computer science; the way young adults interrelate with new technologies; and the need for collaboration between practitioners and researchers justify and support the use of a critical perspective to analyze the suggested topic. Originality/value The call for a critical approach to technology is certainly not a novel suggestion in the LIS scholarship; however, its resurgence is extremely relevant for the LIS field because of the significant role that technology is playing in the daily life of the library and its users.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it