Bibliographic record
Abstract
Last time I wrote, I was sitting at my desk in the south island of New Zealand in springtime, where I was already in tomorrow, far from the home of ALISE in Chicago. This time I am writing from British Columbia where it is deep winter. I have gone from springtime tomorrow backwards to winter in yesterday. Time travel is possible! And swapping houses in an online world where I can work from anywhere does indeed bring true the adage become an academic and see the world. En route to the snow in mid-BC, I met many of our readers at ALISE '14 in a very cold Philadelphia. I also joined the friendly people at the iSchool at the University of British Columbia for a show and tell about my information behaviour research in New Zealand.With this edition, I welcome two new members to my editorial board: Lili Luo from San Jose State University in California and Heather O'Brien from the iSchool at the University of British Columbia in Canada. I met with members of my editorial board at ALISE and we are progressing a number of initiatives including an edition to mark the centenary of ALISE in 2015, and moving JELIS online. 2015 will be a year of looking forward while we look back at how our profession has changed over the last 100 years.But that is next year. Work with JELIS in 2014 continues apace notwithstanding my peripatetic life. During 2013 I had over 45 submissions to the journal. About a third of these were out of scope but the remainder were taken into the review process and are finding their way into the pages of the journal during 2014. This month we have 6 papers; many dealing with pedagogical innovation. Outreach is also a theme in this edition. The new technologies present us with many new options for linking our students with the client groups they serve and strengthening their understanding of values, collaboration and communities of practice. The notion of library as place is being challenged by the ubiquitous nature of information technology and life in the world of the download. But then again, the physical space is much needed as a hub for information sharing and community outreach. This is a dilemma that is being played out across the world as information spaces such as libraries, and the information profession more broadly, evolves and changes.The first time that many of our students encounter their client group is through an internship, or a practicum as it is known in many places. Nora Bird and Michael Crumpton ask us to consider who is the learner in the internship experience-the student, the practitioner supervisor or the LIS educator. A model is proposed that examines what happens for all three participants in the learning journey that is internship.Judi Moreillen and Ruth Nicole Hall invite us to consider ways to communicate and strengthen values by developing digital stories that seek to advocate for our clients. In an era when the value of libraries is under challenge because of the advent of digital technology, it is refreshing to read how these same technologies can be used by information professionals as tools for advocacy. Using a similar theme of engagement within the brave new world of technology, Lisa Nathan and her colleagues eloquently discuss social media policy in the iSchool classroom. They argue that iSchools are uniquely positioned to create proactive, adaptive policies guiding the pedagogical use of social media and they offer initial recommendations toward the crafting of such policies. The use of social media presents many challenges for information professionals in terms of tensions between creativity and security, personal and professional identity, and privacy and openness. …
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 | 0.004 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.732 | 0.678 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".