MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393344744 · doi:10.29173/istl2796

This Habit is Hard to Break: How to Incorporate Different Voices in STEM Information Literacy

2024· article· en· W4393344744 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

VenueIssues in Science and Technology Librarianship · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumInformation literacyHabitSociologyPedagogyLiteracyCritical theoryMathematics educationEpistemologyPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the connection between critical theory, information evaluation, and the instructional practice of critique for STEM students and librarian instructors. Using an emerging theory and instructional method, the authors examine how to more deeply include voices that have historically been excluded from STEM information critique. The foundational ideas, pedagogical approaches, and scaffolded curriculum used to engender a more inclusive approach to information within third- and fourth-year engineering design classes are discussed to contextualize the application of theory to the practical setting. Rooted in critical theory, this case considers how student information behaviors can ultimately perpetuate or subvert social structures and expectations.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
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 score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.049
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.278 · 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