MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W335398425 · doi:10.29173/slw6992

Knowledge Management in Secondary Schools and the Role of the School Librarian

2007· article· en· W335398425 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Helen Boelens

Bibliographic record

VenueSchool Libraries Worldwide · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisionSchool libraryPedagogyRetrainingInformation and Communications TechnologySociologyKnowledge managementPublic relationsComputer sciencePolitical scienceLibrary scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the beginning of the 21st century, educators are facing new visions, theories, and aims of education in a changing environment. In these "new kinds of learning," concepts such as individual learning, cooperative learning, e-learning, and ifelong learning have become important. New visions of learning suggest that pupils can learn to manage or control their own acquisition of knowledge. The introduction of ICT in schools has also contributed to these new visions and has caused enormous changes in the schools themselves. The role of the school librarian and the goals of the school library in the school have also changed. The school librarian needs to retain the ability to run and maintain the important traditional role of the school library, but must also act as an information specialist who coordinates the management of information and knowledge in the school and accesses information and knowledge from outside the school. As the new school information specialist, the school librarian may need retraining in knowledge management. Strong school management, strong infrastructure, and good communication in the school also are essential to the knowledge management process. The content of this article is part of the author's doctoral 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.014
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchool Libraries WorldwideSame topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyFrench-language works237,207