Advancing the Promotion of Information Literacy Through Peer-led Learning
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
Two new courses at the University of Windsor are opening the door to thinking about information literacy and curricular integration in very different ways. The courses, Ways of Knowing and Mentorship & Learning, were originally designed to help with retention and transition issues. They were also founded on the concept of peer-led learning at the university level. In this model students are able to connect with their peers in an organic way that is not always possible with faculty and librarians. It did not take long to see the potential in using peer mentors as potential conduits in the transfer of information literacy skills. This article tells the story behind the development of two courses and the mistakes that had to be made before the connection between mentors and information literacy could be seen. It also shows that by involving faculty and students in the design and delivery of an information literacy-integrated curriculum the library can accomplish far more than any one-shot, tool-based session.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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