Bookworms as information literacy? How Henri Lefebvre's spatial triad encouraged OCAD University to re-place the art library through site-interventions
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
Does the art library need re-placing? Using the commentary of an OCAD University faculty member concerning “a perception issue with the library and its use,” librarian Daniel Payne uses theorist Henri Lefebvre's spatial triad to decode, in general terms, undergraduate students’ understanding of libraries as articulated in the OCLC Perceptions of libraries surveys. In an attempt to re-align concepts of the library as place at OCAD University, an exhibition review interpretation of student site-interventions demonstrates how visual communication can offer more insightful “spatial practices” for both students and library staff. In the process, librarians were challenged to accommodate student creative voices that pushed both policy boundaries and comfort zones. Although a small-scale information literacy initiative in which no formal quantitative data was collected, the ability of having conceptual models of librarians interact and even clash with those of students helped realign both stakeholders’ understandings of libraries as complex spatial entities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.044 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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