MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201647553 · doi:10.29173/slw8214

Exploring Research Topics in the Field of School Librarianship based on Text Mining

2021· article· en· W3201647553 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Soohyung Joo, Maria Cahill

Bibliographic record

VenueSchool Libraries Worldwide · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatent Dirichlet allocationSchool libraryInformation literacyReading (process)Library scienceField (mathematics)LiteracyComputer scienceMathematics educationTopic modelSociologyPedagogyPsychologyPolitical scienceInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study used text mining to explore research topics in the two leading research journals in the field of school librarianship, School Libraries Worldwide and School Library Research. Titles and abstracts were collected from 225 articles of the two journals for the 10 years, 2006 through 2015. Term frequency analysis and topic modeling based on Latent Dirichlet allocation were employed to analyze the collected data. The findings showed the most frequently observed terms and imply the importance of learning, education and programing in school library research. Topic modeling extracted 20 research topics in the field including: school library programming; information literacy; professional roles; digital and technology leadership; research design; policy and management; and others. This study confirmed that programming related topics have been the most widely researched in school librarianship. In both journals, programming is a popular topic. Additionally, professional role, technology, and inquiry skills are amongst popular topics in School Libraries Worldwide, while information literacy, reading, and learning are more common topics in School Library Research.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.414
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.001 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchool Libraries WorldwideSame topicDiverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207