Towards Consensus on the School Library Learning Environment: A Systematic Search and Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The school library as a learning environment has been described by some as a dynamic domain where dedicated professionals and students engage collaboratively in an active and evolving educational climate. Although the field of classroom learning environment research can be charted internationally over the past several decades, journal article literature fails to consistently and coherently identify specific aspects of the school library learning environment and methods to evaluate outcomes. A systematic search and review of the literature using the learning environment as the primary search term revealed a set of 10 elements associated with this concept but few evaluation methods. Clearly defining school library learning environments could aid in the development and evaluation of school libraries as places where librarians and teachers transform and influence student lives and learning.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.062 | 0.173 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.045 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".