Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.553 | 0.429 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".