Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper for the Seventh International Forum on Research in School Librarianship describes a small-scale pilot study that is part of a much larger longitudinal study of “Research and Researchers in School Librarianship”. The pilot study is a preliminary attempt to address issues associated with determining the quality of the published research in the field of school librarianship. The main aims are first, to test the extent to which experienced evaluators agreed in their rankings of research articles on the basis of quality; and secondly, to investigate the ways in which experienced evaluators evaluate research articles. A qualitative, naturalistic research design is used. The data collection was still proceeding at the time the paper was being written; the conference presentation will therefore provide further information about the results of the data analysis and draw some conclusions from the analysis. However, it is already clear from the literature review that the relationship between research quality and the adoption of the results of that research in decision making is more complex than we have supposed.
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 | 0.335 | 0.516 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".