Habilidades informacionais abordadas em instrumentos de avaliação de CI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A avaliacao da competencia informacional e um tema candente e pouco explorado no Brasil. Em âmbito internacional, existem instrumentos validados que sao utilizados em larga escala para verificar a competencia em informacao de individuos em diferentes contextos. Os resultados da aplicacao deste instrumentos servem como um diagnostico para o planejamento e aplicacao de atividades de formacao da competencia informacional pelos bibliotecarios e professores. Realizou-se uma analise de quatro instrumentos internacionais: o Beile Test of Information Literacy for Education – B-TILED da University of Central Florida, o instrumento do Working Group on Library Instruction of the Subcommittee on Libraries of the Conference of Rectors and Principals of Quebec Universities – CREPUQ do Canada, o Information Competency Proficiency Exam do projeto Bay Area Community Colleges Information Competency Assessment Project e o instrumento da universidade St. Olaf College The First Year Information Literacy in the Liberal Arts Assessment (FYILLAA) Project. Neste artigo serao apresentados os resultados referentes as habilidades informacionais abordadas nestes instrumentos. Verificou-se que os instrumentos analisados focaram as habilidades relativas a identificacao dos termos da necessidade informacional, a elaboracao e construcao de estrategias de buscas disponiveis no parâmetro dois da Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL); diferenciacao de fontes (parâmetro um); avaliacao e selecao das fontes informacionais e selecao das informacoes do tema pesquisado (parâmetro tres); e, por fim, as habilidades ligadas a questao do plagio (parâmetro cinco). O parâmetro quatro que esta voltado a comunicacao de informacoes nao foi abordado pelos instrumentos. As questoes de multipla-escolha foram as mais recorrentes em todos os instrumentos analisados. Concluiu-se que ha uma preocupacao dos responsaveis pela elaboracao dos instrumentos analisados com aspectos mais tradicionais de formacao de usuarios e com os aspectos tecnicos da competencia em informacao em detrimento dos aspectos eticos e esteticos.
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 | 0.083 | 0.242 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".