Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research methods are not required by many library and information science (LIS) programs in the United States and Canada; in fact, only half of the ranked programs require such courses of master's of library science (MLS) students. Yet, at the same institutions as the LIS programs, research methods are required in science programs, most social science programs, master's in business administration (MBA) programs, and graduate social work programs. Accreditation standards in business and social work reinforce an individual program's need to require research methods. In graduate education programs, accrediting bodies do not require research methods courses and LIS can be defined-on this issue-as similar to education programs and, possibly, humanities programs. Research competency by MLS graduates accrues sustained benefits to the field. If MLS graduates are to be contributors and consumers of research, then LIS will need to require research methods courses of all students. If the LIS programs are reluctant to include research methods as a core course, then the American Library Association (ALA) may need to make this a requirement for accreditation.
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 | 0.248 | 0.237 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
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".