MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983146548 · doi:10.1080/01639260903272778

Information Literacy and Research-Intensive Graduate Students: Enhancing the Role of Research Librarians

2009· article· en· W1983146548 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

VenueBehavioral & Social Sciences Librarian · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCourseworkInformation literacyGraduate studentsPsychologyLibrary instructionMedical educationPedagogySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article investigates how psychology graduate students find information for coursework and research, who teaches them how to find it, and whether differences emerge over the course of their graduate careers. Findings indicate that these graduate students are comfortable using campus libraries, prefer electronic resources, ask supervisors when they need assistance locating information, and have some interest in furthering their information literacy knowledge. Finally, the master's students use different information management skills than do the PhD students, as evidenced by the use of bibliographic management software. Suggestions for furthering the role of research librarians focus on being more proactive, rather than expecting students to come to librarians for assistance.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.046
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.332 · 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