MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052195324 · doi:10.7152/nasko.v4i1.14651

KO and classification instruction objectives: Are we keeping up with the transformation of our field?

2013· article· en· W2052195324 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

VenueNASKO · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus (optics)Field (mathematics)Subject (documents)Process (computing)Mathematics educationRelation (database)Computer sciencePsychologyMathematicsLibrary scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Each objective listed in courses entirely or partially dedicated to knowledgeorganization (KO) and bibliographic classification in 30 distinct LIS programs was categorized as to: 1. its nature; 2. its subject; 3. its focus; 4. its taxonomic level. The results tend to reinforce observations made over the past 30 years in relation to KO and classification courses. Teaching and learning objectives tend to bevery general, with a clearly dominant theoretical focus. Few objectives focus specifically on the complex process of analyzing subjects, and on new types of skills now required to work with classification structures available in digital form. And even if KO educators recognize the necessity for students to develop high-level analytic and evaluative skills, there are very few references to those skills in current course objectives.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.215 · 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