School-Based Brazilian Librarianship: The Ruling Relations That Inform Its Professional Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The need to equip today’s youth with complex information literacy and knowledge construction skills is a catalyst for change in the traditional practices of school librarians the world over. This necessary change led us to explore school library practices through a global lens. Creating innovative research partnerships with school librarians in other countries provides a space for inquiry that identifies barriers (as well as potential solutions to these barriers) to professional preparation of school librarians for the digital age. This research inquires “what are the similarities in the experiences and practices of school librarians across international boundaries in efforts to meet the needs of 21st century learners?” and more specifically “how do ruling relations impact and shape the experiences and practices of school librarians in Brazil?” Institutional Ethnography methodology is utilized to gain insight into the actualities of professional work lives, while examining the ruling relations that impact the institution. This paper presents findings from phase two of a study on school librarianship, conducted in the fall of 2015 in the State of Pará, Northwest Brazil.
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 | 0.015 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".