MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997637071 · doi:10.3138/jelis.61.1.2018-0003

Multimedia Approaches to Learning the Foundations of Library and Information Science

2020· article· en· W2997637071 on OpenAlexaff
Elysia Guzik, Brian L. Griffin, Jenna Hartel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education for Library and Information Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Analysis and Summarization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliverableComputer scienceClass (philosophy)MultimediaField (mathematics)World Wide WebEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a case study of two types of multimedia resources that were integrated as supplementary learning materials into the design and delivery of two different graduate courses on the historical foundations of library and information science (LIS): video and audio lectures from an online course on the history of information (integrated into a doctoral seminar), and a curated playlist of a weekly public radio broadcast on the history of ideas (integrated into a master’s course). It also considers some of the limitations of compiling LIS-related audiovisual materials from disparate online sources, with references to examples. By analyzing and critiquing these three applications of multimedia resources in LIS graduate courses, this paper attempts to answer the following research question: Beyond traditional pedagogical strategies such as lectures and text-based readings and assignments, how might students, practitioners, and the general public gain a sweeping understanding of our field? The paper aims to help LIS educators to diversify their pedagogical strategies and reach people outside their classrooms. By incorporating these kinds of multimedia resources into course designs, educators may help to empower students to actively and creatively apply what they learn in class to the analysis of historical events, biographies, and social movements, develop technical skills that will benefit their professional development, and produce deliverables that can be shared on public platforms to reach a wider audience beyond LIS classrooms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education for Library and Information ScienceSame topicVideo Analysis and SummarizationFrench-language works237,207