Incorporating information literacy into the building plan
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to show how, in planning and building a new library at a US‐style higher education institution in the Middle East, special attention was paid to the need to encourage and enhance student information literacy competencies. This was a core purpose behind the building design, activity zones and Information Commons layout. Design/methodology/approach Librarians visited a wide range of academic libraries in the USA and Canada as a means of benchmarking best practice in space and building design. Extensive feedback was also gathered from the campus community and their desires reflected in the final design. Findings The library classrooms and adjacent Information Commons are key components in facilitating student information literacy skills. Practical implications Student attainment of core information literacy skills can be facilitated and enhanced through library facility design, particularly through the careful placement of instruction classrooms and a central computing or information commons area. Originality/value The paper shows how planning a new library at a US‐style higher education institution in the Middle East incorporated the need to encourage and enhance student information literacy competencies
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it