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

 
 
 Inquiry learning is a concept familiar to Brazilian librarians, who have been expressing concern about their contribution in innovating the learning process. It is therefore necessary that future librarians experience this learning strategy during their education. This study aimed to investigate: 1) how library students exposed repeatedly to strategies of inquiry learning react; 2) the difficulties they encounter in the process; 3) and what types of learning they acquire. Data were collected through in depth interviews with undergraduate library students taking an Information Literacy Course. Data analysis was based on Kuhlthau’s ISP model (2004) and in the five types of learning (Kuhlthau; Maniotes & Caspari, 2012) Results, that cannot be generalized, show that students reacted positively to the strategy, although they reported several difficulties. In conclusion the repetition of the inquiry learning process became important for students to feel more secure and confident and for their difficulties to be minimized. On the whole the acquisition of the five types of learning was observed.
 
 
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it