Patterns of Information Seeking among Israeli 12th Grade High School Students Writing Final Research Papers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to examine areas of interest and information seeking patterns of Israeli 12th graders who engaged in research work for their final research paper, an optional partial requirement for obtaining an official matriculation diploma. A detailed questionnaire, based on former studies was disseminated in high schools all over the country, yielding 200 usable questionnaires. Main findings: topping the list of chosen topics were the humanities (44%), followed by the sciences (33%), and the social sciences (24%). Considerable differences were found between girls and boys. Girls preferred topics from the social sciences (mainly sociology) and from the humanities (except history) while boys preferred scientific topics. Most respondents had a computer at home (93%) which was usually connected to the Internet (78%) and they had taken some computer course in the past (70%) although a considerable proportion, more girls than boys, did not make use of them. Gender was found to be significantly associated with the chosen field. Taking a computer course and use of home Internet were found to be associated with searching the Internet in the process of information seeking while working on the final paper. A home computer connected to the Internet was associated with the use of formal and informal information sources. The school library was the most-visited one followed by academic, public and home libraries. However, a considerable proportion of the respondents reported no or few visits only. Most respondents reported receiving only little or no advice and guidance regarding the library and database searching. When guidance was provided, it usually consisted of a single-session on a personal basis. Guidance given by a teacher was frequently face to face, with the student more likely to use an OPAC, while when given by a university teacher it was usually in front of a computer, followed by lesser use of OPACs. In summation, although most students were aware of powerful new IT tools, their use is not as prevalent as may be assumed, mainly due to poor or inadequate guidance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".