MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1594484590 · doi:10.1108/lm-06-2013-0048

Keeping ahead of the curve

2014· article· en· W1594484590 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

VenueLibrary Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOriginalityIncentiveIrishPublic relationsValue (mathematics)Continuing professional developmentProfessional developmentQualitative researchData collectionQualitative propertySociologyExploitPsychologyPolitical sciencePedagogyComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – This paper aims to present the results of a qualitative study of the continuing professional development (CPD) activities of academic librarians in Ireland. The benefits of CPD, the methods and strategies of engagement, and the role played by professional organisations are examined, with particular emphasis on the attitudes of librarians towards CPD. Design/methodology/approach – In total, 25 academic librarians were interviewed in depth from four universities in the greater Dublin region. A qualitative approach was chosen to allow the collection of data which was rich and informative. Findings – Academic librarians engage in CPD in multiple ways, both formal and informal, but it falls primarily to the individual librarian to find, participate in, or even create such opportunities, which raises the question of personal motivation and drive. Support from employers and professional organisations is key. Barriers to participation in CPD include time, financial restraints and lack of encouragement from employers. Research limitations/implications – The authors are cognisant of the inherent limitations in using interviews as a data collection method, including the possibility of bias. Practical implications – Academic librarians need to exploit innovative and accessible modes of CPD if they wish to navigate the changes occurring within the profession. Professional library organisations must also reinforce their support of their members in this endeavour. Incentives to participate should build on librarians' personal motivation and job satisfaction, likelihood of career progression, and deepening working relationships with non-LIS colleagues. Originality/value – To date there has been no comprehensive Irish study which has addressed the question of how academic librarians engage with the professional body of knowledge through pursuing professional development activities. This research seeks to present an Irish perspective, but also explores issues which are globally applicable within the profession.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.007
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.226 · 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