MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2283617157

YA Q&A Collaboration

2010· article· en· W2283617157 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueYoung Adult Library Services · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipLibrary sciencePublic relationsWork (physics)Political scienceSociologyMedical educationManagementEngineeringMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collaborating can be hard work-and very rewarding. YALS asked three experienced YALSA members and collaborators to share some of their tips and tricks. YALS: What is your experience with collaborating with other agencies? Maureen Hartman In my previous job as Partnerships Coordinator with the Minneapolis Public Library, it was my responsibility to coordinate strategic partnerships for the library on behalf of youth. These collaborations ranged from small and focused--promoting National Mentoring Month in the library and on the website--to larger and more complex, including working with the local schools and parks on a citywide summer reading program. Some of the most exciting collaborations have been for and with youth, including making the library the home of the Minneapolis Youth Congress and working with the Minnesota Historical Society and the University of Minnesota on History Day Hullabaloo, a library event connecting students to library resources to complete their History Day projects. Erica Cuyugan Partnership and collaboration are a great way to implement large-scale programs and ideas. I love partnering with librarians, teachers, community organizations, and other city staff members on programs. For the past five years, I have successfully collaborated with youth advocates from our city's Cultural and Human Services departments on the Annual Santa Monica Teen Film Festival program. This program has grown in size and scope since the first year, when we received about forty submissions and screened eleven films in one afternoon. This year (our fifth year), we screened thirty-three films out of a record 180 submissions for the festival over two days--one evening and one afternoon screening. Films now come from all over the country and Canada. Stephanie Squicciarini The public library I work in is a school district library, meaning our budget is voted on directly by residents of the school district. So we have a natural and close relationship with the schools and collaborate on many different projects. I also worked with a local juvenile detention facility after being awarded a Great Stories Club Grant. This collaboration included MLS students from a nearby college completing internship hours with the facility. But the longest lasting and most diverse collaborative endeavor has been the Greater Rochester Teen Book Festival (TBF) that I founded seven years ago. Over the years, TBF has been made possible through the work of school and public librarians in three different counties. For the past two years, it has included a partnership developed with a college and its education program. These cooperative and collaborative layers work throughout the year to create an event connecting teens and authors. YALS: What are some of the dos and don'ts of collaboration that you have learned over the years? Maureen Hartman Do make sure the library is getting something from the collaboration. Libraries and librarians are often so willing to help that we forget that both parties have to get something out of any good collaborations or partnerships--otherwise they won't sustain in the long term. Focus on one thing at a time. Sometimes when we meet a new potential collaborator, we get really excited, have a million ideas, and launch them right away. Pick the one that makes the most sense and the one your library can support the most easily. On the basis of its successes and failures, you'll learn a lot about what you can expect for future collaborations with that organization. Don't go it alone. Remember the library's strategic priorities. Without the support for your collaboration--either from your direct supervisor or from the system at large--you'll have a hard time sustaining it. Even the best, most natural idea, if it's not the direction your library can support, will end up pretty frustrating. Don't limit yourself to the tried-and-true. …

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.010
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.252 · 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