Singing in the rain: the role of umbrella concepts in library and information science
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
Introduction. This paper considers the function and use of umbrella concepts within the library and information science (LIS) discipline. Method. This paper uses the example of information avoidance to examine how umbrella concepts shape LIS theoretical work, including how they impact the theorisation of an emerging discipline. Analysis. We use on Hirsch and Levin’s (1999) umbrella concept lifecycle to examine how umbrella concepts develop and, potentially, how they disappear. Results. We suggest that while umbrella concepts provide a useful way to unite disparate or emerging strands of research, they can also constrain the development of a field when the label becomes a convenience rather than an invitation to continue the theoretical work needed to progress scholarly constructs. Conclusions. We finish by considering how this examination of umbrella concepts plays into continued debates about the theoretical structure of LIS (or lack of it) as well as offering suggestions for future research priorities in this area.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.133 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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