Which Formal and Informal Structures Constrain and Enable Collaboration Between School Librarians and Teachers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaboration between teachers and librarians is necessary to fulfil the intention of the regulations of the Norwegian Education Act. In-depth semi-structured interviews with 12 school librarians in upper secondary school (with students aged 15-19), reveal that library tasks, and especially collaboration with teachers, are not embedded in formal documents. The librarians’ teaching activities are to a small extent dependent on formal collaboration, but are often based on familiarity and acquaintance, and therefore person-dependent. Organizational placement varied among the librarians, and they were pragmatic about who they should report to. To be organized in sections together with teachers was considered to be a good position for collaboration, but on the other hand might hinder collaboration with teachers in other sections. The librarians appreciated the freedom they had to run the library, however many of them missed support from their leaders. Information channels like Teams and timetables are important sources for librarians to stayupdated and enable them to target requests to teachers.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".