Information seeking within academic digital libraries
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
When searching within an academic digital library, a variety of information seeking strategies may be employed. The purpose of this study is to determine whether graduate students choose appropriate information seeking strategies for the complexity of a given search scenario, and to explore among other factors that could influence their decisions. We used a survey method in which participants (n=33) were asked to recall their most recent instance of an academic digital library search session that matched two given scenarios (randomly chosen from four alternatives), and for each scenario identify whether they employed search strategies associated with four different information seeking models. Although we expected that the information seeking strategies used would be influenced by the search scenario, this was not the case. The factors that affected whether a participant would use an advanced information seeking strategy were based on their graduate-level academic search training and their primary research methodology. These findings highlight that while it is important to train graduate students on how to conduct academic digital library searches, more work is needed to train them on matching the information seeking strategies to the complexity of their search tasks and developing interfaces that guide their search process.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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