Sparking a Worldwide Conversation on School Libraries 2.0
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The guest co-editors of the School Libraries Worldwide special topic issue on New Learners, New Literacies and New Libraries provide a summary of the key goals of the issue and the worldwide conversation they hope to spark by sharing a diverse set of articles and online resources. Details are provided on developing the journal issue as an open source, online resource; the call for proposals; and the subsequent review process for the issue. The editors provide a further synthesis of key points suggested throughout the review process and the subsequent “publication” of the issue. Questions are raised about reluctance from the field to accept the notion of new learners and new literacies and a tactic claim that these issues are already being addressed in school libraries. The challenge is given for the readers/viewers of this special issue to get engaged in the conversation by responding at the SLW Blog.
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 | 0.061 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.050 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.006 |
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".