Supervising academic library internships for non‐LIS undergraduates
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 - This paper seeks to articulate roles for librarian supervisors of non-LIS undergraduate internships in academic libraries by drawing on ideas from Alderman and Milne's " facilitated mentoring" model. Further, it aims to draw attention to this specific type of internship, which is relatively uncommon, even though it could potentially be implemented in any academic institution that offers internships through its academic departments. Design/methodology/approach - The ideas outlined here are based on both the themes and ideas identified in the professional literature and experiences of supervising undergraduate internships offered in partnership with an academic department at a large university library. Elements of the facilitated mentoring model are outlined and then applied to internships at the Murray Library at the University of Saskatchewan. Findings - Very little of the literature has been devoted to exploring the details of a supervisor's role in library-based internships, especially those for non-LIS undergraduates. Elements of models from other types of library internships generally apply, but this topic is worthy of more attention because elevating supervisors to roles of mentors requires thought and guidance, and certain adaptations are useful when working with non-LIS interns specifically. Originality/value - This work is unique in that it focuses specifically on the supervisory role of librarians who host interns, and because it outlines this role particularly in relation to undergraduates in non-LIS programs. It builds on a model articulated in the literature and applies it to related internship experiences in order to provide insight and guidance for others contemplating assuming this type of role.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.045 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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