MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2232682432 · doi:10.1177/0165551515614473

Editorial

2016· editorial· es· W2232682432 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

VenueJournal of Information Science · 2016
Typeeditorial
Languagees
FieldComputer Science
TopicExpert finding and Q&A systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsComputer scienceVariety (cybernetics)Set (abstract data type)Cognitive models of information retrievalInformation retrievalInformation needsOnline searchInformation seekingField (mathematics)World Wide WebPerspective (graphical)Data scienceSearch engineHuman–computer information retrievalArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although information searching is one of the most popular online activities people engage in for a variety of goals and tasks every day, search systems have long been viewed from a rather limited perspective. That is, search systems have been typically viewed as tools for retrieving online content to satisfy information needs. However, today’s search systems support people’s interactions with information and help people access and use information in ways that go beyond offering a set of search results for specified search tasks. Despite the fact that information search systems have evolved from information-retrieval tools to full-text information-intensive systems over the past two decades, researchers have only recently started recognizing search systems as rich online spaces in which people can learn and discover new knowledge while interacting with online content. This does not mean that searching and learning have not been seen as connected in the field of information science. In fact, there have been numerous studies on the intersection between searching and learning. However, the association between searching and learning has often been defined in terms of searching in the learning environment, having learning as a search goal or learning about searching, focusing on teaching search and evaluation skills to youth. As a result, the concept of learning has often been assumed rather than clearly being articulated in most information science studies. A new research direction we present in this special issue is ‘Searching as Learning’, which attempts to move away from rather simplistic conceptualizations either as searching to learn or learning to search. From the perspective of searching as learning, we propose to reconsider the value of search systems in supporting human learning directly while focusing on the impact, influence and outcomes of using search systems with respect to a learning process. We believe that there are great opportunities to leverage and extend current search systems to foster learning by reconfiguring search systems from information-retrieval tools to rich learning spaces in which search experiences and learning experiences are intertwined and even synergized. The idea of studying and designing search systems to foster learning during the search process and create a rich learning space has been attracting growing recognition among researchers and practitioners in recent years. This Special Issue is a follow-up to the Searching as Learning (SAL 2014) workshop ( held in conjunction with the Information Interaction in Context (IIiX) Confe

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.027
Open science0.0060.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.278 · 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