Towards Training Librarian 2.0 through A Community-based Participatory Group Project: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Librarian 2.0 adopts user-centered approach. This paper reports the case study of a community-based participatory approach for training librarian 2.0. The findings suggest that this approach allows the students to practice user-centered interactions, identify and integrate the user’s needs into design decisions, and develop ways of collecting the user’s feedbacks.Les bibliothécaires 2.0 adoptent une approche centrée sur l’utilisateur. Cet article présente une étude de cas sur une approche participative et communautaire visant à former les bibliothécaires 2.0. Les résultats suggèrent que cette approche permet aux étudiants d’interagir avec les usagers, d’identifier les besoins, de les intégrer dans leur processus décisionnel et de développer des moyens de recueillir les commentaires des usagers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".