Information Literacy Instruction in Canadian Undergraduate Science Education 2000–2015:/L'apprentissage des compétences informationnelles dans l'enseignement des sciences au premier cycle au Canada 2000–2015: A Literature Review/revue de la littérature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reviews the peer-reviewed journal article literature concerning information literacy in Canadian post-secondary undergraduate science education between 2000 and 2015. It provides a picture of information literacy instruction at the start of the new millennium, before the launch of ACRL's . Three recurring themes are identified: faculty–librarian collaboration, curriculum design and pedagogy, and feedback, assessment, and renewal. Associated best practices in design, delivery, and evaluation of information literacy are discussed. This review should be of value to Canadian academic librarians and faculty who are interested in information literacy instruction in the Sciences.\nCet article passe en revue les articles de revues évalués par des pairs concernant les compétences informationnelles dans l'enseignement des sciences au premier cycle au Canada entre 2000 et 2015. Il fournit une image de l'apprentissage des compétences informationnelles au début du nouveau millénaire, avant le lancement du Référentiel de compétences informationnelles en enseignement supérieur de l'ACRL en 2015. Nous avons identifié trois thèmes récurrents : la collaboration entre le corps professoral et les bibliothécaires, la conception et la pédagogie de programmes, et la rétroaction, l'évaluation et le renouvellement. Nous discutons les meilleures pratiques associées en matière de conception, de prestation et d'évaluation des compétences informationnelles. Cette revue devrait être utile aux bibliothécaires universitaires canadiens et aux professeurs qui s'intéressent à l'enseignement des compétences informationnelles en sciences.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".