La repercussió de les noves sortides professionals en les titulacions en Biblioteconomia i Documentació: un estudi exploratori
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Als Estats Units i el Canadà s'han posat en marxa nombroses iniciatives per part dels centres acadèmics que ofereixen plans d'estudis en Biblioteconomia i Documentació per tal d'obrir el ventall d'oportunitats laborals als seus titulats més enllà de les tradicionals biblioteques. Aquestes iniciatives han donat lloc a l'aparició d'especialitzacions en àmbits com la custòdia d'informació i l'anàlisi d'informació. En altres casos s'han creat nous títols en Gestió de la Informació i Gestió del Coneixement amb la finalitat de millorar les oportunitats laborals dels titulats. Sovint, la millora del ventall d'oportunitats laborals per a titulats de programes de formació de professionals de la informació es coneix també com a In the USA and Canada, there has been considerable effort on the part of program providers of professional degrees in Library and Information Science to expand job opportunities for graduates of their programs beyond the traditional placement in libraries. This has led to the development of specializations in topics such as Data Curation and Data Analysis. In other cases, new degrees in Information Management and Knowledge Management have been developed and offered in the effort of improving job placement results of graduates. Expanding placement opportunities for graduates of programs educating information professionals is often referred to as developing alternative career opportunities to the traditional jobs for information professionals in libraries and related organizations such as archives and museums. Such programs often focus on the broader term information and promote education and research for the information professions beyond the traditional LIS professions in libraries and related institutions. A number of schools no longer offer LIS degrees, but offer degrees in Information instead. This paper examines the patterns of name changes found in degrees and programs in schools with American Library Association accredited programs and presents an analysis of the reported impact on alternative and/or new career opportunities on the graduates specifically with Information Management degrees. Suggestions are made for further research needed to determine the success of these new degrees as well as issues related to the relevance of accreditation of programs by the American Library Association in the context of the changes taking place in LIS education.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".