Academic Librarians and the Road to Success: Facilitating Undergraduate Achievement Through Information Access
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Presents qualitative interview data exploring academic librarians’ perceptions of undergraduates and the role of information resources, design of physical space, and information literacy programs in facilitating academic success. Findings point to information access problems given the university’s socio-political context, varied definitions of success, and frustrations with technology and space planning.Cette étude présente des données d’entrevues qualitatives explorant les perceptions des bibliothécaires universitaires au sujet des étudiants de premier cycle et le rôle des ressources informationnelles, de l’aménagement de l’espace physique et des programmes de littératie contribuant à la réussite universitaire. Les résultats orientent vers les problèmes de l’accès à l’information selon le contexte sociopolitique universitaire, les différentes définitions de la réussite et les frustrations ressenties envers la technologie et l’aménagement de l’espace.
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 | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".