MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3105170416 · doi:10.29173/cais1168

Facilitating Student-Authored Papers in LIS Education Research: A Case Study from the LIS Classroom

2020· article· fr· W3105170416 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Davin Helkenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSI · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary scienceSociologyPedagogyHumanitiesComputer scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the process and tools used to facilitate a collaborative student-authored paper that was recently published as a short communication in the Journal of Education for Library and Information Science (JELIS). This paper is written by the instructor of the course and provides direction to other LIS instructors on how to successfully facilitate publishable quality student-authored papers as an in-class activity using online collaborative teaching tools. Cet article décrit le processus et les outils utilisés pour faciliter un article collaboratif co-écrit par des étudiants, récemment publié sous forme de brève communication dans le Journal of Education for Library and Information Science (JELIS). Cet article est rédigé par l'instructeur du cours et fournit des directives aux autres instructeurs de LIS sur la façon de faciliter avec succès des articles de qualité publiables et co-rédigés par des étudiants en tant qu'activité en classe à l'aide d'outils d'enseignement collaboratif en ligne. Il est particulièrement pertinent pour les cours ou les projets qui incluent des sujets de justice sociale.

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)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.106
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.106
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0160.007
Scholarly communication0.0150.009
Open science0.0050.010
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSI→Same topicOnline and Blended Learning→French-language works237,207→