A rationale for information literacy as a credit-bearing discipline
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: While the need for comprehensive information literacy in today’s society is becoming increasingly apparent, and initiatives abound within local, regional, national and international educational venues, there is evidence that information literacy within higher education today is failing to meet its dual intentions of becoming credible within the academic community and pervasive within university programs. The goal of this paper is to present a more rigorous approach to information literacy as a credit-bearing discipline. Approach: Following a literature review, the paper will propose an educational rationale for information literacy as a discipline. Practical Implications: If a proper educational rationale can be determined for information literacy, this can become the basis for actual information literacy credit programming within institutions of higher education. Originality/Value: While the idea of information literacy as a liberal art or a discipline is not new, this paper is the most comprehensive attempt to date to provide a rationale for information literacy as a credit-bearing discipline.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.206 |
| 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