MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310102510 · doi:10.29173/iasl8536

Pre-kindergarten Students are coming, but can School Librarians serve them?

2022· article· en· W4310102510 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maria Cahill, Denice Adkins

Bibliographic record

VenueIASL Annual Conference Proceedings · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationService (business)School libraryMathematics educationPedagogyPsychologyMedical educationPolitical scienceLibrary scienceMedicineComputer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pre-Kindergarten students are present in public schools throughout the U.S., but it is unclear whether school librarians currently have the leeway and/or neccessary guidance to provide services to them. This paper uses a document analysis student (Bowen, 2009) to identify 1) whether school librarians across the US are certified to provide services to pre-K students and 2) whether standards provide guidance for how school librarians should be serving them. As our findings demonstrate, the issue of SL service to pre-K students in the US is murky and unbalanced. Only half the states certify school librarians to provide services and instruction for the grade level, and in only three states do they have both standards that explicitly address SL learning expectations for pre-K students and academic and/or early childhood standards that enable integration with other domains and facilitate collaboration with classroom teachers. Of particular concern is the lack of guidance provided to school librarians via standards in four states where they do have authority to serve pre-K students.

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)0.014
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0100.012
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.006

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIASL Annual Conference ProceedingsSame topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207