MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W64659201 · doi:10.29173/slw7124

Instructional Intervention is the Key: Supporting Adolescent Information Seeking

2007· article· en· W64659201 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jennifer Branch

Bibliographic record

VenueSchool Libraries Worldwide · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEncyclopediaInformation seekingPsychologyFocus groupInformation literacyIntervention (counseling)PedagogyMathematics educationMedical educationComputer scienceLibrary scienceSociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research sought to examine the information seeking processes employed by Canadian junior high school students from Inuvik, Northwest Territories and Beaumont, Alberta when using CD-ROM encyclopedias and when completing inquiry-based learning activities. The first study revealed that participants needed both instruction and practice to develop the skills and strategies needed for full-text searching of CD-ROM encyclopedias. The participants tended to use search terms only from the original question, had difficulty selecting topics and articles from the retrieved list, and did not read long articles as carefully as short articles. The second study revealed that students needed support throughout the inquiry-based learning experience and that using Kuhlthau's Information Search Process model as a guide for affective stages was useful. Participants needed time to explore, discuss, and read before finding a focus for their inquiry. Both studies found that participants wanted time to talk and discuss and that instruction was important to help students move forward in their searching and 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations44
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchool Libraries WorldwideSame topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyFrench-language works237,207