Why Does SoTL Happen in a Librarian-Free Zone?
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
This exploratory study seeks to gather preliminary information about the roles that academic librarians in the United States (US) and Canada play in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) work on their campuses. It also provides insight into how librarians at US Carnegie Research 1 (R1) classified universities and U15 Group of Canadian Universities (U15) participate in SoTL, to discover ways by which these librarians might grow these roles, as well as their understanding of SoTL expertise, to better support students. Data was collected through an internationally distributed survey. The authors used thematic analysis along with descriptive statistics to examine how academic librarians participated in SoTL practices as consultants, developers, partners, and scholars. Results from this study expand upon prior research on the role of librarians in this field of study and examines how barriers can be broken down to improve the working relationships between teaching faculty and librarians at research intensive universities to enhance student learning.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| 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 it