MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3144758958 · doi:10.29173/iasl7524

IB School Libraries as International-minded Learning Spaces and Environments

2021· article· en· W3144758958 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anthon Tilke

Bibliographic record

VenueIASL Annual Conference Proceedings · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Education and Multiculturalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHonestyDocumentationVariety (cybernetics)Space (punctuation)Constructivist teaching methodsPedagogyPublic relationsSociologyPolitical scienceMathematics educationLibrary sciencePsychologyComputer scienceTeaching method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The International Baccalaureate Organization (IB) offers educational programs to schools world-wide. Originally established for international schools, programs are now typically offered in a variety of public and private educational institutions in many countries. The IB has developed four programs, covering a continuum of education from early years to courses for students aged 18 years of age. Programs are largely constructivist-based and IB ‘big ideas’ include inquiry, a holistic view of the learner (IB Learner Profile), international-mindedness and academic honesty, yet the role of the library, overall, is not as clearly identified as may be expected, given factors friendly to a library and information sector paradigm. This professional paper reviews IB documentation and thinking, identifies opportunities where the library can support and contribute to the programs and identifies good practice, focusing on conference themes of the school library as a learning space, learning environment and as a ‘window on the world’.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0090.016
Scholarly communication0.0430.024
Open science0.0020.017
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.281 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIASL Annual Conference ProceedingsSame topicGlobal Education and MulticulturalismFrench-language works237,207