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
Purpose This paper aims to investigate upper-undergraduate and graduate students’ perceptions of interdisciplinarity in relation to their information-seeking habits by analyzing their beliefs, rationalizations and preferences around the retrieval, evaluation and use of information sources for interdisciplinary research. Design/methodology/approach This study made use of focus group interviews with 18 student participants enrolled in different academic programs in the humanities and social sciences at a research university in Toronto. Transcript data were analyzed through use of the constant comparison method. Findings Students perceive the classification of library collections as both helpful and problematic in their pursuits of interdisciplinary work. Students believe that knowing how to identify appropriate terminology while navigating scholarly and non-scholarly environments is crucial to their success in interdisciplinary research. Librarians can adjust their service philosophies and research tools to better anticipate the needs of students engaged in interdisciplinary research. Originality/value This paper adds to the literature by providing library practitioners and other interested parties with a unique view of how undergraduate and graduate students contextualize their information needs when undertaking interdisciplinary research work.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it