MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252614488 · doi:10.29173/slw8254

The Influence of Teacher Librarians' Personal Attributes and Relationship with the School Community in Developing a School Library Programme

2021· article· en· W4252614488 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marisa McPherson

Bibliographic record

VenueSchool Libraries Worldwide · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Methods and Media Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchool libraryChristian ministryInterpersonal communicationProfessional developmentPublic relationsOrder (exchange)SociologyPedagogyMedical educationPsychologyLibrary sciencePolitical scienceBusinessComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability of teacher librarians worldwide to develop and maintain school library programmes has been severely constrained by a number of factors ranging from inadequate budgetary allocations, lack of support from principals and other key stakeholders such as Ministry of Education personnel. However, even with limited funding and support, some teacher librarians have used ingenious strategies to develop and maintain their library programmes. This literature review synthesizes international research obtained from peer-reviewed journals, theses and professional papers on the personal attributes that a teacher librarian should possess in order to influence the development of a school library programme and the types of relationships the teacher librarian need to have with key stakeholders to be successful. The literature examined spanned a time period mostly from 2000-2018. The literature review found that leadership, collaboration, communication and interpersonal skills were the dominant skills a teacher librarian should possess in order to develop and maintain a school library programme alongside a good relationship with the school community.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchool Libraries WorldwideSame topicEducational Methods and Media UseFrench-language works237,207