Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper explores the meaning of the recently drafted National Policy for Library and Information Services (NPLIS) for school librarianship in South Africa. It argues that, after years of failed advocacy, a convergence of thinking across the LIS ecosystem enabled the policy project and gives new hope for the transformation of the school library sector. The investigations throughout 2017 sought to find out from a wide range of role-players what and whose behaviour they believed should be changed. The paper describes our evidence-gathering across the country and how the data were analysed into broad themes around which the policy was built. The paper pulls out the threads on school LIS policy but also highlights the principles that tie them to the overarching policy. Thus, the insistence on an ecosystems approach calls for innovative strategies to counter long-established silo-thinking. Key words: LIS policy, South Africa, school libraries
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.125 | 0.042 |
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".