Sharing information literacy resources as open educational resources: lessons from DELILA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In all higher education institutions, librarians create a wealth of teaching resources that they use in their information literacy sessions. But is everyone reinventing the wheel, looking for the best way to teach search strategies, citing and referencing or keeping up to date for researchers? In practice librarians are usually more than happy to share their resources through numerous information literacy conferences and networks. Many of us share materials with colleagues across our own institution; some share more widely across institutions, for example, by using the UK’s learning resources repository Jorum (http:// www.jorum.ac.uk), either by putting material on open websites or even by emailing copies of our materials to colleagues. There have been several initiatives or projects to encourage librarians to share their teaching materials. One set of pages of the Information Literacy website (http://www. informationliteracy.org.uk) collects examples of good practice in teaching. In the USA and Canada the ANTS project (http://ants.wetpaint.com/) is a wiki where librarians can share library tutorials. However, it is only fairly recently that librarians have been encouraged to share their materials specifically as open educational resources (OERs), which means the materials have an open licence(such as Creative Commons).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".