MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015077654 · doi:10.1108/00907320911006994

An information literacy program built for relevance and purpose

2009· article· en· W2015077654 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stéphanie Simard

Bibliographic record

VenueReference Services Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation literacyRelevance (law)OriginalityComputer sciencePopulationLiteracyInformation scienceLibrary scienceKnowledge managementMathematics educationSociologyPedagogyPsychologyPolitical scienceQualitative researchSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the design and implementation of an information literacy program for the Faculties of Science and Engineering at McGill University. Design/methodology/approach Borrowing from the literature and Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, a theoretical approach to audience characterization is used to generate learning outcomes aligned with American Library Association Information Literacy Standards for Science and Technology. Findings Results suggest that a learner‐centered program, addressing potential gaps between perceived and actual skills and needs, is well‐received by the student population. Originality/value This study, primarily focused on the description of a program, provides timely and useful information to academic librarians.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.365 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReference Services ReviewSame topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyFrench-language works237,207