MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6966827330 · doi:10.5061/dryad.98sf7m0qq

Survey of U.S. and Canadian librarians on open pedagogy

2024· dataset· en· W6966827330 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDRYAD · 2024
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation literacyWork (physics)Open educationOpen universityLiteracyLiteracy educationHigher education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the growth of open pedagogy has come the growth of library support for open pedagogy. Likewise, more and more case studies are demonstrating how librarians use open pedagogy to support student growth in information literacy, specifically the Association of College & Research Libraries’ Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education. However, little has been done to look at the broader picture of how librarians are supporting open pedagogy and how ready they feel to do so, especially in connecting open pedagogy to information literacy. This data comes from a survey of librarians in the United States and Canada who work in information literacy instruction and/or open education about their practice in open pedagogy.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.034

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.285 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDRYADFrench-language works237,207