MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240893514 · doi:10.1002/bult.2013.1720400101

Editor's desktop

2013· article· en· W4240893514 on OpenAlex
Irene L. Travis

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Architecture and Usability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraftArchitectureFocus (optics)Advice (programming)Computer scienceLibrary scienceSociologyEngineering ethicsEngineeringVisual artsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Education, practice and theory. All three of these aspects of information architecture (IA) are covered in our annual IA issue “Information Architects: What We Do and How We Learn.” In our lead article, Robert Glushko presents ideas about organizing as a general, interdisciplinary problem from his recent book The Discipline of Organization. He introduces a framework for analyzing organizational problems and systems, touching also on the problems of teaching students from heterogeneous backgrounds in a single course. The challenges of teaching IA, where interdisciplinarity is so pervasive, are also treated by Craig MacDonald and Thom Haller, our associate editor for IA. MacDonald conducted research to determine the sources from which practicing IAs say they learn their craft, while Haller explains the approach he used for 15 years to teach IA. Finally, we cover practice with both John Heffernan and Paula Land giving advice about preparing and executing system migrations. Interdisciplinarity is also the focus of the RDAP Review, as Inna Kouper, Katherine Akers and Matthew Lavin discuss their highly varied programs and goals as Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR) data curation postdoctoral fellows. In common with information architecture, RDAP is a diverse activity that attracts and requires input from many different perspectives. ASIS&T itself is the focus of the rest of the issue. In his last column as ASIS&T 2013 president, Andrew Dillon reflects on the Association's recent accomplishments and the way in which programs must and do carry across multiple years, a process aided by our system of having a president-elect, a president and a past president who are active in the governance of the Association. We also include reports in Inside ASIS&T on programs that the organization has sponsored or co-sponsored: a doctoral forum in July at the conference of the International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics in Vienna, Austria (Christian Schlögl); ASIS&T's participation with the AAAS Science and Human Rights Coalition (Toni Carbo); and a panel of ASIS&T Board Members discussing information science research with students at McGill University during the Board's July retreat in Montreal (Rhiannon Gainor).

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.219 · 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