MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281699950 · doi:10.29173/pathfinder47

Reflecting on our Time as Digital Literacies Librarians

2022· article· en· W4281699950 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Joanna Nemeth, Alissa Droog

Bibliographic record

VenuePathfinder A Canadian Journal for Information Science Students and Early Career Professionals · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbiguityLiteracyDigital literacyReflection (computer programming)Term (time)Work (physics)Information literacySociologyLibrary sciencePedagogyComputer scienceEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What does it mean to have digital literacy in a job title? In this reflection paper, two early career academic librarians discuss their experiences as Digital Literacy/ies Librarians. They reflect on the ambiguity and magnitude of the term digital literacy, and how they interpreted the term in their work.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0380.029
Scholarly communication0.0390.021
Open science0.0030.019
Research integrity0.0080.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePathfinder A Canadian Journal for Information Science Students and Early Career ProfessionalsSame topicLiteracy, Media, and EducationFrench-language works237,207