Bibliographic record
Abstract
By now we’ve probably all seen the image of a phone on Social Media with a sticky note on it warning us that whilst it may be bringing us closer to those far away is it taking us away from those sitting next to us. Is this true in school libraries? In our determination to be at the forefront of technology are we neglecting other forms of connectedness? Re-imagine. Library spaces, library roles, library programs. How can both the physical and digital libraries become the hub of the school? Re-discover. Bring back tried and true activities. Maker Mondays don’t always have to be about Technology. Concurrent activities have something for everyone. Re-connect. To students, staff, local and global communities. The libraries at an Australian International College have constantly been evolving since 2010. From a 1970’s dark Senior building and a Junior classroom to the centres of their respective campuses as an Inquiry Centre and a Learning Commons. The paper will outline how Library facilities have been reinvented with 2 purpose built buildings. The Inquiry Centre with the PYP at its heart and the Learning Commons serving to provide a third space for patrons. Changes and improvements to provision of Library Services will be outlined. Changes explored will be the introduction of a comprehensive suite of digital databases, how research and referencing is embedded in each Unit and how Digital Technology is enhancing learning. Advocacy and promotion is important in all libraries and some examples of how this is achieved will be showcased. Using the LMS at the school to link to newsfeeds, embed databases into unit pages and inform parents of events will be explained. Celebrating success is so important and how Library Services ensure this is a regular feature will also be shown. In conclusion, the paper will outline the importance of collaborating at the school, local community and global levels. A snapshot of one school’s journey to re-imagine, re-discover and re-connect.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.268 | 0.368 |
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".