Librarian as partner: in and out of the library
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As was discussed in Chapter 1, the definition of scholarship has, since the work of Boyer (1990), moved from a narrow focus on research to incorporate the full scope of academic work; furthermore, the literature review also revealed tantalizing glimpses of how librarians are leaving their university library to become embedded in the workflows of academic departments. This chapter explores these two themes further by examining the impact of the digital on the scholarship of teaching and uses a case study of the University Library and Centre for Education Futures (CEF) at the University of Western Australia (UWA). The case study also explores how the transferable skills and expertise of librarians can be successfully extended in the development of digital learning and teaching design in a campus-based researchintensive university. It describes the collaborative partnership which incorporates services to academic staff and students and brings together two areas – library and education – in a practical and impactful approach to achieving the University's Education Futures Vision. Finally, the case study demonstrates how transferable skills and knowledge have allowed librarians to expand their roles within and beyond the Library, and have even led to library professionals changing career paths successfully.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it