Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information literacy (IL) is an important means by which academic libraries prove their value within higher education and to broader (sceptical) society. Yet if IL is an array of sociocultural practices that are ultimately about how we find meaning in and engage with the world, then it cannot be taught or obtained in a classroom, even through the most carefully considered (critical) pedagogy. As a result, we find ourselves in a "stuck place", in a relation of “cruel optimism” (Berlant, 2011) with IL, a relation in which we return again and again to the thing we desire, with the expectation that this time, things will be different; everything will work out. What if academic librarians were to acknowledge and refuse the ambivalence of our cruel relation with IL and envision ourselves as helping students learn “how to library” instead? If we de-centred this particular version of IL within academic librarianship, what might we make room for? What alternative spaces for thinking might open up?
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".