Information Behavior Research: Where Have We Been, Where Are We Going?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A quantitative content analysis of recently published research in information behavior is compared with previous analyses to create a 30-year profile of work in the field. Variables of particular interest include research methods employed, user groups studied, relative interdisciplinarity, theoretical frameworks applied, attention to affect, and attention to systems design.Une analyse quantitative de contenus de recherches sur le comportement informationnel publiés récemment a été comparée à des analyses réalisées précédemment afin d’aboutir à un profil sur trente ans du travail accompli dans le domaine. Les variables offrant un intérêt particulier comprennent : les méthodes de recherche utilisées, les groupes d'utilisateurs étudiés, une relative interdisciplinarité, les cadres théoriques appliqués, l’attention aux affects, et l’attention aux conceptions de systèmes.*** Awarded Best Overall Conference Paper ***
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.055 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it