Creating scholartistry: Engaging studio-based learning in academic libraries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OCAD University is a studio‐based learning environment that has been at the forefront of innovation in \nCanadian art and design education since 1876. The school’s transition to full university status in 2002 \nhas advanced this tradition by exploring intersections between academic structures and the unique \nepistemologies of creative research. This process has required a re‐thinking of goals and objectives in \naesthetic education, as well as discovering commonalities between the two realms of scholarly and \ncreative research; an integrative framework termed as scholartistry by researchers Knowles, Promislow, \nand Cole (2008). In response, the Dorothy H. Hoover Library has striven to participate in bridging these \ntwo domains at OCAD University by emulating studio‐based learning methodologies within an academic \nlibrary framework. \n \nThe conference session will explore the library’s unique environment and how it has used new learning \nmodels in its daily operations from space planning, to enacting visual literacy standards, through to \nemploying studio learning practices to provide information literacy support. As a forum for expressing \nnew sholartistry goals, the library has become a partner in digital publishing through the Open Research \nRepository; a platform that seeks to collaborate with faculty to explore Open Journal Systems and Open \nMonographs as an ideal discursive forum for scholarly communication in a creative arts environment. \nAs a tangible manifestation of the library’s pedagogical goals, the session will profile the Learning Zone, \na studio‐based space that serves as a laboratory for the library in exploring new services to OCAD \nUniversity students. It is an experimental, information‐rich environment with both high‐tech and lowtech \noptions for students to pursue their research unfettered by the arbitrarily imposed division \nbetween analogue and digital materiality. This highly creative library environment at OCAD University \nfacilitates proximal learning at various points in the creative process, serving as a site for case study \nresearch, display, studio‐based exploration, and performance. \n \nOverall, the session will explore ideas of how libraries can activate studio‐based learning, community \ndevelopment, and excellence in creative production through an ethos of flexibility, adaptability, and \ncuriosity about the needs of researchers engaged in scholartistry. \n \nKnowles, J.G., Promislow, S. & Cole, A.L. (Eds.). (2008). Creating scholartistry : imagining the artsinformed \nthesis or dissertation. Halifax, NS: Backalong Books.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".