Exploring the Role of Information Literacy Instruction in Student Co-Creation of Community-Based Research Products
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supported by institutional commitments to community engagement, undergraduate students at universities across North America are participating in community-based research projects. These experiential learning activities allow students to collaborate with community partners to address issues in their communities, often resulting in co-creating research products that seek to have a real-world impact. This article reports on ways that academic librarians can support students engaged in these activities, informed by interview data gathered from university administrators and faculty members from across Canada with expertise in conducting and overseeing students' participation in research connected to university–community partnerships. This growing area of scholarly activity in higher education provides instruction librarians with unique opportunities to teach students valuable information literacy skills tied to knowledge equity, representing a threshold concept that recognizes students' abilities to create new knowledge that strives to be accessible, inclusive, and done in an ethical manner that serves community interests.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it