Social Role of the Librarians of the Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology
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
The study was carried out through the theoretical foundation about the conceptions and objectives of the Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology, and also on the social role of the librarians of this educational institute. These Federal Institutes were created in Brazil in 2009 and they offer basic and higher education. This study aims at investigating, analyzing, and understanding if the librarians of the Federal Institutes of Education, Science, and Technology recognize their social roles as professionals that can contribute to the development of cognitive skills with regards to the information in the library’s users. A case study was carried out with all the librarians of the Federal Institutes and questionnaires were the method used for collecting data. It should be noted in the librarians’ answers that they recognize their social roles, and they act according to what they recognize. In their everyday practices, these librarians try to minimize the difficulties that the library’s users face in relation to the search, location, use, assessment, dissemination, and understanding of information.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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