MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139911852 · doi:10.29173/iasl7697

How do School Libraries Promote Student Success?

2021· article· en· W3139911852 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ana Rita Martins, Rosa Martins

Bibliographic record

VenueIASL Annual Conference Proceedings · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortugueseGovernment (linguistics)Work (physics)Process (computing)Plan (archaeology)AccountabilityCritical success factorReading (process)School libraryQuality (philosophy)Political scienceKnowledge managementPublic relationsComputer sciencePedagogySociologyEngineeringLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Education in Portugal is undergoing significant changes related to the government-led Technological Plan. This is a consequence of the major reconfiguration introduced by educational technologies now available to schools. Such a process presents challenges to schools libraries, which must respond adequately, change management and information management practices and engage in collaborative work with teachers. School Libraries aim at developing reading and information literacies and at implementing creative problem solving-based approaches to learning, such as inquiry based learning. Since its establishment under inter-ministerial initiative in 1996, the School Libraries Network (SLN) has strived to incorporate critical success factors identified in international literature. SLN has moreover implemented the School Libraries Self-Evaluation Model, to reinforce school libraries' educational role and promote quality and accountability. This paper aims at confronting the realizations and shortcomings of SLN with internationally identified concepts, standards and critical success factors, whilst revealing aspects of the Portuguese reality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0070.042
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.267 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIASL Annual Conference ProceedingsSame topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyFrench-language works237,207