MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413183453 · doi:10.1080/24750158.2025.2542433

Shaping the Global Future of Library and Information Science Education: Lessons Learned from the Web-based Information Science Education (WISE) Consortium and Other International Collaborations

2025· article· en· W4413183453 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Linda C. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Australian Library and Information Association · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation scienceLibrary scienceWeb of sciencePolitical scienceEngineering ethicsKnowledge managementWorld Wide WebData scienceComputer scienceEngineeringMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper explores the past, present, and possible futures of international collaboration in the context of library and information science (LIS) education and highlights past and present examples in LIS education, the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), and the iSchools organisation. A more detailed review of the Web-based Information Science Education (WISE) consortium explains how course sharing was accomplished, including schools in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and how the WISE + initiative extended collaboration to include professional associations. The 20-year history of WISE suggests multiple factors that should be considered when future LIS education collaborations are planned. The concept of collaboration as a continuum of future efforts is also discussed, including in research, internationalisation of student experience, doctoral education, continuing professional development/lifelong learning, supporting specialisations, and open access/open educational resources.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0090.017
Scholarly communication0.0240.025
Open science0.0010.025
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Qualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Australian Library and Information AssociationSame topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyFrench-language works237,207