MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004787717 · doi:10.1300/j111v45n03_08

WISPR (Workshop on the Information Search Process for Research) in the Library

2006· article· en· W2004787717 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 Library Administration · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation literacyPremiseSyllabusVariety (cybernetics)Process (computing)Computer scienceLibrary instructionFoundation (evidence)Mathematics educationBlended learningPedagogyWorld Wide WebSociologyPsychologyEducational technologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This paper details how stand-alone instructional elements became the foundation for a new inquiry-based blended learning approach to information literacy on our campus. Based on the information search process research of Kuhlthau and designed to be inserted into blended learning classes, an information literacy workshop consisting of both online and face-to-face components was developed. Rather than simply train students on specific research tools, the premise for the workshop is to lay a broader foundation for students' inquiry based on discovery. A variety of assessment features (self-tests, quizzes, graded assignments) are employed throughout the syllabus. doi:10.1300/J111v45n03_08

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)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.053
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.296 · 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