Reviews and practice of college students regarding access to scientific knowledge: A case study in two Spanish universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzes the concepts, attitudes, and practices of 327 pedagogy students from two major Spanish universities related to the process of finding academic information utilizing open access. A training program has been developed through an innovation project (PIMCD) to address the problem of the lack of university training designed to enable students to access reliable sources of scientific knowledge. A mixed questionnaire with a pretest-posttest design, applying a descriptive analysis, a factor analysis, and a Wilcoxon test was administered to students. The results show that it is essential to provide information and training to encourage university students to learn how to find and manage rigorous and reliable sources of information. While searching for academic information, Spanish students tend to focus on the use of Google and, to a lesser extent, Google Scholar. Although there are no significant limitations of access to Spanish language articles, students’ attitudes remain very positive towards the concept of open access. In short, in accordance with the study results, the promotion of educational activities relating to the search for and selection of information and the use of reliable and rigorous academic content is highly recommended in the university context.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".