MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386568672 · doi:10.29173/pathfinder78

Reflections on Information Literacy in the ChatGPT Era

2023· article· en· W4386568672 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Joel Blechinger

Bibliographic record

VenuePathfinder A Canadian Journal for Information Science Students and Early Career Professionals · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsInformation literacyGenerative grammarLiteracyContext (archaeology)Computer scienceReflection (computer programming)Artificial intelligenceMathematics educationSociologyPedagogyPsychologyWorld Wide WebHistoryProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is a reflection on information literacy evaluation heuristics, their use in the post-secondary information literacy instructional context, and the challenges posed to them by large language models like OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Mike Caulfield’s SIFT and Jane Mandalios’ RADAR are analyzed as examples of heuristics that run into problems when used to critically assess large language models and their generated textual output. The author concludes by sharing thoughts on how he thinks information literacy instruction may be forced to change by generative artificial intelligence in the future.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePathfinder A Canadian Journal for Information Science Students and Early Career ProfessionalsSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207