MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Subject Index

2020· book-chapter· en· W4256676542 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovations in higher education teaching and learning · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Environments and Student Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubject (documents)Index (typography)Computer scienceLibrary scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Citation (2020), "Subject Index", Sengupta, E., Blessinger, P. and Cox, M.D. (Ed.) Designing Effective Library Learning Spaces in Higher Education (Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Vol. 29), Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 203-205. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2055-364120200000029016 Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited Copyright © 2020 Emerald Publishing Limited INDEX Subject Index Academic Achievement Center, 153–156, 163 Academic business library, 14–15, 18, 24, 26, 30 Academic librarians, 5, 47–48 Academic libraries, 5, 6–8, 10, 15, 17, 34–35, 37–38, 40–41, 126, 132–135, 148 Academic literacies, 48, 54 Academic Technology (AT), 76, 85 Acquisition, 19, 38, 40 Active learning, 14, 22–23 Active learning classroom (ALC), 8, 14, 18 Active learning space, 14, 21, 26–27, 29 Adaptable spaces, 133, 168 Affordable Learning Georgia Initiative (ALG) Initiative, 8, 35 Affordances, 11, 170–171, 174, 178–185, 190 Architectural explorations, 6 Assessment, 51, 104, 108, 116, 153 Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), 31, 49, 53, 56 BYOD (Bring Your Own Device), 14 Campus, 14, 28, 34, 149, 151, 155, 160–161, 163, 169, 186 libraries, 84 Campus bookstores, 35–36 Campus ecosystem, 10, 148 Canadian universities, 9, 18, 47–48, 54, 57 Case studies, 8, 10, 46–56 Changes in digital environment, 61–62, 64 Changes in physical environment, 61–62, 64 Co-location, 153, 155, 160, 162, 164–165 Collaboration, 8, 14, 22, 30, 48, 54–55 librarian and faculty digital learning, 90–91 between spaces, 140–141 Collaborative learning, 5, 15, 18–20, 22–24, 26, 149, 151 pods, 27, 29 Collection development policies, 8, 35, 41 College or University, 4, 18, 159 Comfort, 175, 177, 180, 183 Construction, 10, 24–25, 136, 152, 172 Control, 23, 182, 184 Convenience, 104, 179, 182, 185–186 Course materials, 8, 35–41 Course reserves, 8, 38–42 Creativity, 50, 128, 130, 135 Design flaws, 25 pedagogy and, 51–54 Digital active learning, 17 Digital and Information Literacy Framework (DIL), 10, 78–83, 87, 90, 105–108, 110 Digital ecology, 9, 78 Digital information literacy, 78 Digital learning, 9–10, 26, 76–92, 111 Digital literacy, 76–92, 105 Digital self-efficacy, 9, 82, 90–91 Digital spaces, 62, 111–112, 118 Dimensions of Digital Learning, 9, 91–92 Distance education, 10, 102–104 DRM-free ebooks, 37–41 E-book(s), 19, 34, 38–40 subscription packages, 39 turnaway statistics, 38 E-resource, 41, 48, 57, 149 Educational technology, 42, 133 Educational technology solution, 14, 22, 24, 26 Entrepreneurship, 156 Environment, 170, 174, 179–180 classroom, 22 digital learning, 111 group, 26 learning, 5–7, 86, 88–89, 105 low intensity, 69 online learning, 42 research, 5 technology-driven, 16 Ethnographic methods, 65, 72 Faculty digital learning, 81, 90–91 Feedback, 22–23, 27, 50, 56, 109, 109, 113, 142 Feeling, 172, 174, 177–178 Flexible learning space, 18 Footprint, 129, 149, 154, 161, 186 Georgia Tech Library, 8, 35, 37–42 Gibson, 170, 175 Graduate students, 8, 48–50, 54–55 Green, 159, 161, 171 HCD, 62 Higher education (HE), 6, 8–9, 34, 46–47, 49, 65, 76–77, 102, 104, 148, 159, 186 Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA), 35–37 Human-centered design, 62, 68 Inductive reasoning, 174 Informal learning space, 11, 169 Information commons, 151 Information literacy (IL), 10, 28, 46, 83, 102, 151 Innovation, 8–9, 46, 76, 79, 126, 134, 156, 163 Instruction, 9, 18, 25–27, 78, 85, 90, 102 Intellus Learning, 41 Interactivity, 108–109, 113, 115 Learning design, 8, 46 objectives, 79, 126 outcomes, 50–53, 55–56, 81, 83–84, 104 space, 7, 11, 14, 17–19, 23, 126, 128, 132, 152, 186 Learning Commons, 149–154, 156, 168 Learning Management Systems (LMS), 41–42, 82–84, 86 Liaison librarians, 89 Librarian and Faculty Digital Learning Collaboration, 90–91 Library, 4–8, 14 changes, 69, 72 collection policies, 37–41 innovations, 68 instruction, 19, 26–27, 79, 133 learning spaces, 46, 88–90 policies, 134, 138 renovation, 15, 24–25, 30, 168 spaces, 4–7, 72, 127, 148–165 study, 150 Location, 31, 38, 55, 87, 96, 150, 155 Makerspace, 128–130, 132–142, 158–159 Making, 4, 42, 104–105, 113, 134–136, 141, 183 Master plan, 10, 148 Mobile podium, 24, 25 Mobile whiteboard partitions, 20 Modular furniture, 24, 26 Multi-user license, 41 Node chairs, 14, 20, 24 Online learning, 17, 47, 111 Online learning environment, 42 Online survey, 82, 100, 113, 173 Open educational resources (OER), 34 Open University (OU), 10, 102 Participant-generated photographs, 171–172 Patron-driven acquisitions (PDA), 38 Pedagogy, 9, 10, 48, 51, 77, 87, 103 Peer-to-peer learning, 22, 23 Perception, 81–82, 90–91, 169–170 Photo-elicitation, 171–172 Possession, 178–180, 182–186 Qualitative research, 81 surveys, 81 visual ethnography, 171 Quality Matters (QM), 86 Queen’s University, 48, 54 Reading lists, 42–43 Reference, 5, 65 Research skills, 48–49, 54–55 Resources, 4–7, 41–42, 87, 90, 107, 154 Scholarship, 7, 49, 53, 130 Screen mirroring, 14, 18, 22–23, 29 Screen sharing, 22, 106, 108 Self-efficacy, 9, 76, 81–86, 88–92 Sony Vision Exchange, 14 Space, 5, 163, 183 Space redesign, 62 Spirituality, 159 Stakeholders, 4–5, 7, 16, 31, 36, 164–165 State of being, 177 Student-centered learning, 4–6 Student2Scholar (S2S), 8–9, 46 Study environment, 11, 184 Synchronous online teaching, 100–102, 111–112, 115 Teaching, 4, 6, 10, 16, 29, 46–47, 51, 82, 112 Teaching spaces, 18, 20, 22, 30 Technological changes, 46–48, 77 Technology, 46 digital learning, 77 educational, 42, 133 integration, 103 Testing, 48, 52, 56 Textbook affordability, 35–36 Textbooks, 8, 34–42, 133 Themes, 70, 100, 174, 176, 179 Tradition, 154, 156, 159 Traditional classrooms, 133 Traditional libraries, 6 Traditional model, 4, 78 Traditional role of librarians, 6 Traditional textbooks, 41 Training sessions, 106–112 Transactional distance, 103, 109, 115 Turnaways, 39 Ubiquitous learning, 78 University of Cambridge, 68–70 of Fresno, 65–68 libraries, 9, 48, 62, 114 of North Carolina, 10, 62–64 of Toronto Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 48 of Western Ontario, 48 of York, 64–66 Unlimited users license, 40–41 User experience, 9, 60–73 in Brazil, 72 User Study, 70 UX, 9, 60–73 Virtual learning, 42, 78 Virtual learning environment, 76, 105 Virtual spaces, 8 Visual ethnography, 11, 171, 174 Webchat, 10, 114–118 Wireless active learning, 14, 23 Book Chapters Prelims Part I: Collaborative Learning Space Chapter 1: Introduction to Designing Effective Library Learning Spaces in Higher Education Chapter 2: From “Dust to the Dawn of a New Age”: Creating a 21st Century Active Learning Classroom Chapter 3: Library Collections at Georgia Tech and the Affordable Learning Georgia Initiative Chapter 4: Designing Effective Library Learning Spaces – Student2Scholar: A Case Study Chapter 5: User Experience Applied at University Libraries Chapter 6: A Study on Digital Literacy Perspectives when Designing Library Learning for Rural Community Colleges in the Connected Age Chapter 7: Live Online Information Literacy Teaching and Learning – Challenges and Opportunities Part II: Effective Design Chapter 8: Beyond the Classroom: Developing Nontraditional Learning Spaces in an Academic Library Chapter 9: Designing Library Space to Support Evolving Campus Needs Chapter 10: Building a Better Space: Using Affordances to Build Better Locations of Study About the Authors Name Index Subject Index

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.014
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0170.010
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.7760.822

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.300 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovations in higher education teaching and learningSame topicEducational Environments and Student OutcomesFrench-language works237,207