MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156637039 · doi:10.1353/pla.2004.0035

Student Bibliographies Improve When Professors Provide Enforceable Guidelines for Citations

2004· article· en· W2156637039 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venueportal Libraries and the Academy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Regina
KeywordsComputer scienceMathematics educationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper uses bibliometric analysis to test the efficacy of in-class library instruction in relation to the quality of student term paper bibliographies and grades. It finds that: instruction alone has limited effect; instruction combined with academic penalties tied to the use of a minimum of scholarly sources has positive and significant effects; electronic citations are less scholarly, but not necessarily less valid than print citations; and papers with longer bibliographies tend to receive higher grades irrespective of the kinds of citations. The paper concludes that since academic penalties are important to the success of in-class librarian instruction, librarians should work closely with professors to design class assignments; the provision of minimal guidelines is preferable to banning Internet citations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.014
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.300 · 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