Uncertainty Revisited: People and Information in a World of Unknowns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychological uncertainty is established in LIS models, but epistemic and aleatory uncertainties remain absent. We critically review the concept of uncertainty in LIS and beyond. Presenting a new framework on uncertainty for LIS, we suggest new approaches to more fully address the uncertain world we and our subjects inhabit.L’incertitude psychologique est un modèle établi en science de l’information, mais l’incertitude épistémique et l’incertitude aléatoire demeurent absentes. La communication propose une revue critique du concept d’incertitude en science de l’information et dans d’autres disciplines. En présentant un nouveau cadre conceptuel relatif à l’incertitude en science de l’information, nous suggérons de nouvelles approches pour mieux aborder le monde incertain dans lequel nous et nos sujets habitons. ***Full paper in the Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science***
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 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".