”Just Do It”: Using Questions to Create Professional Development Opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I worked in libraries part time throughout my education, starting in high school. When I announced to my then-employer that I was accepted to the Master of Library and Information Studies (MLIS) program at McGill University, she told me something that I never forgot. She said that the degree provided the required piece of paper to get my foot into librarianship but that I would need to keep learning throughout my career to do the job well. I graduated with my MLIS degree more than two decades ago and have since engaged in a variety of professional development activities to keep my skills current and improve my daily practice. The best professional development activities have involved doing what I learned about, either during the course of the activity itself or shortly thereafter. I think of the Nike slogan,
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 | 0.020 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.010 |
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".