Bibliographic record
Abstract
lies at the center of studies, the professions, and education. Yet there are few agreed upon pedagogical strategies for engaging students in our central concept. In many educational programs the nature of is assumed to be obvious and therefore left uninterrogated. Alternatively, students may be asked to read articles, such as Information as Thing (Buckland, 1991), in conjunction with a lecture, class discussion, or writing assignment. To expand the available options, this brief communication offers educators in studies a new, artsbased, participatory approach for teaching about itself.At the Faculty of Information, University of Toronto, I ask my students to draw a conception of on a 4 by 4 piece of paper, coined an iSquare. This activity serves as a genial entree to an abstruse topic, accommodates a wide-variety of learning styles and intelligences, complements the scholarly literature about information, leads to lively class discussions, and generates a bespoke collection of images that can be tapped throughout the semester.Conceptions of traditionally appear as definitions made of words, but there are compelling reasons to invite students into the conversation via images. Drawing activities have been used successfully in other fields to engage learners in the topics of celebrity (Gauntlett, 2005), teaching (Weber & Mitchell, 1995), and economics, (Budd, 2004), among many other matters. Visual theorist and educator Sandra Weber (2008) asserts that images are more accessible than academic discourse, capture things that are hard to put into words, communicate more holistically, evoke stories or questions, and help us pay attention in new ways.The classroom procedure is easy to execute and utilizes readily available, inexpensive materials. In advance, heavy white drawing paper should be cut into 4 by 4 squares. Good quality paper encourages students to take the activity seriously; the modest size keeps the images from sprawling and is more felicitous to display and manipulate afterwards. One side will be used for the drawing surface and the other to capture a profile of the participant. For greater consistency, black pens can be provided to all students, which limit the expression of to a simple monochrome figure. To begin, instructions should be presented as follows:On one side of the paper respond to the question What is information? in the form of a drawing. On the other side of the paper write your name, age, gender, and area of study. You will have 10 minutes. Please use the paper and pens provided.Each student will produce one unique drawing and altogether the class generates a diverse collection of iSquares, for a learning experience on both personal and social levels. My previous research has found (Hartel, in press) that the pictures capture the major themes surrounding today. For instance, some drawings will locate in the mind, in renderings of the brain or head animated with a thought bubble [Figure 1(a)]. Other expressions will reflect the communicatory and social aspect of information, entailing figures talking in twosomes or groups [Figure 1(b)]. Many pictures will likely capture information as thing (Buckland, 1991) with displays of books, documents, or technologies [Figure 1(c) and 1(d)]. Often students will envision in symbols, whether periods, dollar signs, or question marks [Figure 1(e)]. The dynamic, abstract, and somewhat mysterious nature of may appear in striking patterns made of circles, dots, or dashes [Figure 1(f)]. …
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.021 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".