Reimagining Scholarly Communication through Experiential Learning: Merging Theory and Practice for MLIS Students
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lack of consistent training for scholarly authors, peer reviewers, and editors is a problem across disciplines, but it is one that affects academic librarians in a unique variety of ways. Like instructional faculty, academic librarians are generally required to engage in scholarly activity, but they are also increasingly in the position of providing guidance on and advocating for emerging trends in scholarly communication. This presentation will describe how the creation of a student-run journal and an associated scholarly communication course in Western University’s Faculty of Information and Media Studies (FIMS) are helping to meet this need. L'absence d'une formation cohérente pour les auteurs, les évaluateurs et les éditeurs des communications savantes, est un problème dans toutes les disciplines de recherche, mais aussi un problème qui affecte les bibliothécaires universitaires de différentes manières. À l'instar des professeurs, les bibliothécaires universitaires sont généralement tenus de s'engager dans des activités savantes, mais ils se retrouvent aussi de plus en plus dans une position où ils doivent guider les chercheurs et leur fournir des conseils sur les tendances émergentes de la communication savante. Cette présentation décrira comment la création d'une revue dirigée par des étudiants et qu'un cours sur la communication savante dans la faculté d'information et des études des médias de la Western University peuvent contribuer à répondre à ces besoins.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.057 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it