The University of Alaska Anchorage experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the fall 2005, when two faculty librarians at the University of Alaska Anchorage’s (UAA) Consortium Library realized that three people on the library staff were enrolled in library school, they saw the perfect opportunity to start a discussion group that would benefit both currently employed librarians and students entering the information field. The original three students were enrolled in the MLIS distance program at the University of Washington, working in the Consortium Library, and taking classes part-time. The two faculty librarians had been out of library school for more than ten years by then, so the intent was to organize a forum with an informal, relaxed atmosphere that would be an engaging way to keep up with current curricula, to learn about class projects the students were working on, and to hear about their experiences. While the librarians learned from the students, the students could, in turn, share their new expertise with the library faculty. That was the beginning of what came to be known as FLIP: Future Library and Information Science People.1 Now, nearly seven years later, FLIP is still going strong. What the name stands for has changed slightly—to Future Librarians and Information Professionals—and the membership has expanded to include anyone considering a career as a librarian or enrolling in an MLS or MLIS program. Characterizing FLIP as a “mentoring” program misses the mark, since so much more than just mentoring is happening. Because the benefits go both ways, we prefer the term “un-mentoring” to describe FLIP. Regardless of its definition or description, however, the original purpose remains the same: to provide an informal discussion forum that enriches library school studies with librarian expertise, advice, and insight.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 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".