MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162879256 · doi:10.1080/02763869.2021.1912580

Aligning Information Literacy and Evidence-Based Dentistry Concepts in a Rubric to Improve Dental Education

2021· article· en· W3162879256 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Reference Services Quarterly · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRubricInformation literacyCurriculumMedical educationGeneral partnershipDental educationMedicineLiteracyPsychologyPedagogyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding of the alignment of key concepts in both evidence-based dentistry and information literacy could lead to greater collaboration between librarians and dental faculty. To identify these areas of partnership, a group of dental librarians from across North America created a rubric aligning information literacy concepts with competencies from dental education groups in the United States and Canada. The process included identifying relevant competencies, determining information literacy concepts for each competency, and adding learning outcomes scaled by Bloom's Taxonomy. The resulting rubric is useful for advocating librarian involvement in dental education curriculum, communication with dental faculty, and instruction planning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.423 · 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