Scientific Culture Change from Above and Below at UBCO: Implementation of a Comprehensive Open Science Library Information Literacy Program for Undergraduates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many agree that science must change to become more open. But change is difficult, and<br> universities bound by size and conservative traditions may be slow to introduce incentives and<br> rewards for the practice of Open Science (OS) (Lancaster 2016). Johannes Vogel, director general of the Museum für Naturkunde and Professor of Biodiversity<br> and Public Science at Humboldt University in Berlin, recognizes the power that young people<br> have to mobilize movements and suggests that they can help to open up science. In his article<br> “Scientists need to learn from the young”, Vogel (2019) states, Science must learn to listen, open up and again become part of the community. Such a<br> transformation … will cost time and money, including the restructuring of the incentive<br> systems in science itself. Students have long been catalysts of social and political change, so why not introduce them to<br> OS at an early stage? The University of British Columbia’s Okanagan Campus in Kelowna, B.C.,<br> Canada recently took the bold step of funding a two-year strategic project that includes the<br> creation, deployment, and evaluation of a comprehensive Open Science library information<br> literacy (IL) program specifically for undergraduates. Project leads from the Library and the<br> Department of Biology intend to make the core tenets and practices of OS second nature to<br> future graduates and global citizens. We believe that this initiative is unique in North America: it<br> breaks new ground both as an effort from the university to foster change at the grassroots and<br> as a model for comprehensive undergraduate IL instruction in Open Science. Given the nascent nature of the Open Science (OS) movement, scant literature on best<br> practices in library OS IL instruction exists. Extant publications on this topic (e.g. Lopes et al.,<br> 2019) tend to focus on IL instruction of researchers pursuing graduate studies – that is, EU<br> Level 2 or higher. One exception is Ayris & Ignat, who suggest involving undergraduates (EU<br> Level 1 students) in citizen science projects (Ayris & Ignat, 2018). The beginning stages of the project are being implemented in the 2019/2020 academic year as<br> a nine-module program that will interweave Open Science principles and practice into the<br> Biology undergraduate curriculum, and five of the modules will have been delivered by the end<br> of the 2019/2020 academic year. Ultimately, the project will attempt to secure further funding to<br> instate the program as a micro-credential; expand it to other areas of study, starting with<br> Psychology and Human Kinetics; and establish undergraduate research awards conditional on<br> adherence to Open Science practices. This talk will outline the undergraduate program’s modules and documents the creation,<br> delivery, and evaluation of an introductory module for first-year Biology students on the Canvas<br> online learning platform in Fall 2019. The module, “OS 101”, will give students an overview of<br> the practical challenges of conducting reproducible research, the societal impact of<br> irreproducible research, and philosophical and ethical issues surrounding Open Science.<br> Completed modules will be made available as Open Educational Resources in markdown<br> format on GitHub.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".