MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1585234429

Welcome to Library and Information Science

2012· article· en· W1585234429 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education for Library and Information Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBATESDisciplineInformation scienceSociologyRhetorical questionContext (archaeology)Library scienceSensibilityVisionComputer scienceSocial scienceLinguisticsPolitical scienceHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper enacts the following scenario: At an orientation session for a library and information science (LIS) program, an educator gives incoming students a brief address entitled Welcome to Library and Information Science. Three versions of that talk are offered here, drawn from seminal works by Shera (1973a), White (1992), and Bates (1999). In turn, each author is introduced, the historical and literary context of the article is noted, and then its unique characterization of LIS is presented in a spoken rhetorical style. three disquisitions are followed by discussion questions designed to engage newcomers and observations on the pedagogical strengths and weaknesses of each paper. A conclusion crystallizes each work's conception of library and information science as a unified domain. Readers who are educators will benefit from refreshers in these foundational writings and learn new communication and teaching strategies. Student readers will enjoy succinct and accessible introductions to a troika of major visions for LIS. Keywords: library and information science, intellectual history, disciplinary identity, Jesse H. Shera, Howard D. White, Marcia J. Bates Introduction A debate has been simmering over the past several years concerning the status of library science and information science paradigms within the broad realm of information studies. Gorman (2004) and Crowley (2008) assert that the information science perspective has eclipsed its library counterpart, to the detriment of the discipline and profession. Bonnici, Subramanian, and Burnett (2009) apply a sociological theory of disciplinary change to information studies and conclude that an emerging iField has absorbed the library-oriented sensibility. On a more upbeat note, Dillon and Norris (2005) argue that such controversy marks the entire history of LIS and that the current era is one of unprecedented growth that can benefit all stakeholders. paper at hand does not engage these arguments about disciplinary identity and status directly. Instead, it revisits compelling visions of LIS, as articulated by distinguished contributors in landmark publications. One objective is to remind all parties involved in the debates of interpretations of LIS that are unifying rather than divisive. Another goal is to provide educators with resources, drawn from a rich literature, to welcome newcomers to the field during a period of change. There are many excellent definitional statements about information studies and several are shown in Table 1 . Due to space limitations, criteria were applied to select three as the focus. Each featured paper was required to address the nature of LIS as a whole and in an introductory writing style. format of a journal article or book chapter was favored, which is an appropriate genre to assign to students. Preference was given to a strong, original theme. author had to be an accomplished researcher and educator of LIS with a substantial publication record. three chosen works are: Jesse H. Shera's Toward a Theory of Librarianship and Information Science (1973a), Howard D. White's External Memory (1992), and Marcia J. Bates' The Invisible Substrate of Information Science (1999). research process involved a close reading of the three featured papers. In addition, related writings from the authors' oeuvre and critical commentary on their work were considered, when available. amount of critical commentary on the three papers varied. Since Shera's death in 1982, there has been considerable critical analysis from other scholars. Differently, White and Bates are still active contributors and their work has not been similarly subject to review. However, the work of White and Bates is further illuminated by their own published personal reflections in the forms of a memoir (Bates, 2004), speeches (Bates, 2005; White, 2002), and sundry writings (Engle, 2002; McCain, 2005; White, 2005). …

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablemedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.544
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it