Framing Information Literacy as Scholarly Practice with Undergraduate Student Journals: A Grassroots Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many undergraduate student associations and societies publish independentresearch journals, but very few studies exist to report on their development orsuccess.1 Often self-directed, with little to no faculty support, student-drivenresearch publications are a prime target for outreach and education effortsaround scholarly communication. This chapter presents the development ofa partnership initiated between the authors and undergraduate students involvedin the publication of research journals in the Faculty of Arts at McGillUniversity. Sharing our expertise in information literacy and scholarly communication with undergraduate editorial boards and student associations,we developed a local, grassroots engagement approach with far-reaching outcomes.In addition to training students in scholarly communication issuesand related concepts, the authors established direct and personal ties withundergraduate students committed to making a difference within the openaccess movement. These students eventually initiated other networks andgrassroots development initiatives with the aim of adopting and promotingscholarly communication practices, developing policies to support them, andestablishing these changes as an essential part of their student-led organizationalstructures—a critical step, the authors believe, that will lead to the institutionalization of information literacy interventions within the university research culture as a whole.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".