MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410705276 · doi:10.29173/cais1918

Librarian Use of the Knowledge Practices and Dispositions in the ACRL Framework

2025· article· en· W4410705276 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSI · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Science and Information Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySociologyKnowledge managementComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This poster details the findings of an investigation of US academic instruction librarians’ use of the knowledge practices and dispositions in the Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education from the Association of College and Research Libraries (2016). The Framework is a departure from the previous set of standards, but is often critiqued for being too theoretical and therefore not relevant to practice. In order to investigate the extent to which academic librarians use this theoretically-grounded document in practice, a questionnaire and interview study was conducted. This questionnaire explored librarian preparation in library science and education; familiarity with the frames, knowledge practices, and dispositions; examples of how, if at all, the knowledge practices and dispositions are implemented in information literacy instruction; and barriers with implementing the Framework. Follow up interviews investigated more deeply how various parts of the Framework were implemented in librarians’ daily work. L'usage par les bibliothécaires des pratiques de connaissances et dispositions dans le référentiel de l’ACRL RésuméCette affiche détaille les résultats d’une enquête sur les bibliothécaires universitaires aux États-Unis quant à leur utilisation des pratiques de connaissances et des dispositions dans le Référentiel de l’Association of College and Research Libraries (2016). Le Référentiel s’éloigne de l’ensemble des normes antérieures, mais est souvent critiqué pour être trop théorique et par conséquent, n’étant pas pertinent dans la pratique. Dans le but de déterminer dans quelle mesure les bibliothécaires universitaires utilisent ce document fondé sur la théorie dans la pratique, un questionnaire et une entrevue ont été mis en place. Ce questionnaire explore la formation des bibliothécaires dans le domaine de la bibliothéconomie et de l’éducation; leur familiarité avec ces cadres de référence, leurs mises en pratiques de connaissances, ainsi que les dispositions; des exemples de la façon dont, le cas échéant, les pratiques de connaissances et les dispositions sont implantées dans l’enseignement de la maîtrise de l’information; et les obstacles dans l’implantation de ce cadre de référence. Les entrevues de suivi ont permis d’analyser en profondeur la façon dont les divers éléments du cadre sont mis en œuvre dans le travail quotidien des bibliothécaires. Mots-clésMaîtrise de l’information; pratiques de l’information; analyse de contenus quantitatif

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.039
Open science0.0040.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.236 · 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