The Value of Information in Professional Settings is Experienced through Relationships and Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Review of: Sharun, S. (2019). Exploring value as a dimension of professional information literacy. Journal of Information Literacy, 13(2), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.11645/13.2.2627 Abstract Objective – To critically explore the frame “Information has Value” in a workplace setting. Design – Semi-structured interviews. Setting – Community health centre in Canada. Subjects – Seven health and human services staff members serving vulnerable, urban youth ages 12 to 24. Methods – The researcher employed phenomenography to analyze interviews and to identify categories of information practice. Main Results – Four categories of information practice emerged: resourcing, referring, outsourcing, and advocating. The researcher identified the value of information as central to participants’ experience of information practice in the workplace. Subjects’ understanding of the nature and significance of value was situated within personal relationships and professional networks. Conclusion – The study demonstrated that a specific aspect of information literacy can be successfully investigated to highlight its complexity and to show how it is experienced in a specific setting. A second conclusion was the centrality of interpersonal relationships to how value is experienced in professional information practice. The researcher recommends further study exploring relational value and in the sociocultural practice of information literacy.
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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.655 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".