MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Co-Teaching as Mentors: Maximizing Instructor and Librarian Collaboration for Teaching Information Literacy Skills

2022· article· en· W4400931573 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

VenuePapers on postsecondary learning and teaching. · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCollaborative Teaching and Inclusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipInformation literacyContext (archaeology)Teaching and learning centerMedical educationTeaching methodPedagogyPsychologyMathematics educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes a co-teaching collaboration between an instructor and an academic librarian, working together to deliver an innovative, inquiry-based course offered to first- and second-year university students. The authors describe the context for this relationship and the methods that were used to ensure that this collaboration intentionally and purposefully met the course objectives and students’ needs. The interaction between the instructor and librarian could best be described as a co-teaching mentorship in which both were responsible for teaching and working with the students as well as reflecting on the learning benefits that this opportunity provided for students as well as for each other.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0140.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.293 · 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