MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314679983 · doi:10.3138/jelis.57.2.84

Envisioning Our Information Future and How to Educate for it

2016· article· en· W2314679983 on OpenAlex
Eileen G. Abels, Lynne C. Howarth, Linda C. Smith

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education for Library and Information Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrincipal (computer security)CurriculumProcess (computing)Engineering ethicsPublic relationsLibrary scienceSociologyHigher educationPolitical scienceKnowledge managementPedagogyEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) funded National Forum Planning Grant “Envisioning Our Information Future and How to Educate for It” brought together a diverse group of stakeholders to lay the framework for re-visioning LIS education. This article describes three take-aways from the 2015 forum: encourage wide recruitment; build bridges; and adapt for the future. Actions underway to address each of these are described. The forum was the beginning of the re-visioning process. The principal investigators are currently engaged with various constituencies to obtain feedback on the actions and to gain insights into directions for curriculum redesign. LIS educators are encouraged to collaborate to make the vision a reality.

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 categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.059
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.213 · 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