Mitigating risk: mediating transition through the enactment of information literacy practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present the emergent grounded theory of mitigating risk, which was produced through an analysis of the information literacy practices of English-speakers who are learning a language overseas as part of their undergraduate degree. Design/methodology/approach The grounded theory emerges from a qualitative study that was framed by practice theory and transitions theory, and employed constructivist grounded theory, semi-structured interviews and photo-elicitation methods to explore the information activities of 26 language-learners from Australia, Canada, the UK and the USA. Findings The grounded theory of mitigating risk illustrates how academic, financial and physical risks that are produced through language-learner engagement overseas catalyse the enactment of information literacy practices that enable students to mediate their transition overseas. Research limitations/implications This study’s theory-building is localised and contextual rather than generalisable. Practical implications The grounded theory broadens librarians’ and language-educators’ knowledge of student activities during immersive educational experiences as well as extending understanding about the shape that information literacy takes within transition to a new intercultural context. Social implications The grounded theory develops understanding about the role that local communities play within intercultural transition and how these groups can respond to and prepare for increasingly fluid patterns of global movement. Originality/value This paper contributes to an increasingly sophisticated theoretical conceptualisation of information literacy while further providing a detailed exploration of transition from an information perspective.
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 | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".