Information Literacy in Students Entering Higher Education in the French Speaking Community of Belgium: lessons learned from an evaluation
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
Although universities are providing more and more information literacy training for their undergraduate students, the students' real level of information literacy at the beginning of their studies has never been assessed. Hence EduDOC has decided to team up with the CIUF `Library' Commission in order to organize a wide study aiming at objectively describing this initial level of information literacy, at identifying the students' main weaknesses, as well as allowing instructors to adjust their training on this basis. The questionnaire was based on a similar study carried out in Québec and contains 20 questions grouped in five themes relating to information search steps. It was sent in September 2007 to a random sample of students entering a higher education institution in the French Speaking Community of Belgium for the first time. The students' rather poor results confirm that organizing an information literacy program is imperative if students are to perform well in their studies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.024 |
| 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