MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389282563 · doi:10.11645/17.2.8

Information as a relation: Defining Indigenous information literacy

2023· article· en· W4389282563 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

VenueJournal of Information Literacy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
FundersUniversity of Washington
KeywordsIndigenousInformation literacyReciprocity (cultural anthropology)SociologyLiteracyIdentity (music)AccountabilityIndigenous educationKinshipPedagogyPublic relationsPolitical scienceSocial scienceAnthropologyAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Informed by relationality and reciprocity, Indigenous librarians who teach play a key role in creating learning opportunities for students to gain information literacy (IL) skills and become better users and creators of information. Through unstructured interviews with seven Indigenous librarians, we find that Indigenous identity and ways of knowing based on relationality and reciprocity are key components shaping the pedagogy of Indigenous librarians, as it informs the ways they enact accountability, build relationships, set boundaries, and practice care. Through this work, we offer a definition of Indigenous information literacy, which is the ability to use information and create or gain knowledge, while practicing the Indigenous concepts of relationality, reciprocity, and respect. This work lays the groundwork for further explorations of relationality, kinship, and Indigenous ways of knowing in information literacy and Indigenous librarianship.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.156
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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 head0.306
Teacher spread0.295 · 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