MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306906627 · doi:10.21900/j.alise.2022.1099

Authority is constructed and created … but not by you

2022· article· en· W4306906627 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ALISE Annual Conference · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb and Library Services
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSandbox (software development)ScholarshipConversationPerspective (graphical)Information literacySociologyPublic relationsDigital scholarshipPosition (finance)LiteracyPedagogyPolitical scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide WebLibrary scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper engages in a critical review of information literacy practices as manifest through materials shared publicly on the ACRL Sandbox. Focusing primarily on the frames “Authority is Contested and Constructed,” and “Scholarship as Conversation,” we analyze lesson plans shared on the ACRL Sandbox that address those frames, including the positionality of the students for whom the lessons were created. Preliminary analysis finds that most of the lessons shared position students exclusively as information consumers, learning how to find and evaluate existing published research, rather than emphasizing their potential roles as producers. This perspective fails to capitalize on students as creators (e.g., from formal undergraduate research to social media). We conclude by presenting some ways in which information literacy instruction can be adjusted to prepare future librarians to recognize and respect students’ existing knowledge and build upon that knowledge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.195 · 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