What Language Are We Speaking?: Marketing Information Literacy on University Library Websites
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 study investigates how Canadian university libraries communicate information literacy (IL) to non-library faculty members on faculty-facing web pages. A content analysis was conducted of websites from institutions affiliated with the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (n = 25) to identify trends in the terminology used to describe IL. The findings reveal that the term "information literacy" appears with varying frequency across website headings, subheadings and body text, while terms like “research skills” and “critical information use” may appear in its stead. University libraries may intentionally be employing these terms to enhance faculty engagement in response to the existing literature, which suggests non-library faculty generally dislike IL jargon. These findings have implications for how academic libraries market their IL-related services to non-library faculty, suggesting a need for further research into how the work of IL can be effectively communicated to non-library audiences.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.104 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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