Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whilst teaching years 5 and 6 I was once asked to describe my library. My response to this was ‘it rocks’. The staff viewed me quizzically and subsequently moved on to their lunchtime conversation. Little did I know this would be the theme of the 2015 conference? In 2013 I inherited my current library as the stereotypical ‘quiet’, very structured environment of the past century. It was visited by few students during their lunchtime as they required a lunchtime pass (only 6 per class) which was given to them by their classroom teacher. These passes were then collected by library monitors at the door - no pass, no library!Library lessons consisted of 30 minute sessions whereby books were loaned, returned, a story read and the class departed and then the next class arrived to repeat the procedure regardless of age. The schedule was busy as there are 24 classes. There were occasions whereby a book was recommended as a great read and short listed books from the Children’s Book Council were shared. How to change the mind set of both staff and students to see the library and its potential was both my challenge and my goal. It was time to move towards 21st century learning whereby students can develop the skills of creativity, communication, collaboration and critical thinking. This is not rocket science as this is every teacher librarian’s goal. I can successfully say that 2 years later my library rocks and this sentiment is wholeheartedly shared by students, staff and the community.‘So much time and so little to do. Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it. Thank you.’ (Willy Wonka, 1971) That was 2014.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.046 | 0.043 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.019 |
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".