Keeping Up With the YouTube Generation: Collaborating with Student Video Bloggers to Enhance Library Instruction

Undergraduates can make significant contributions as members of multimedia production teams for academic libraries. In this case, at USF Tampa Library, an undergraduate “YouTube video blogger” worked with library faculty and graduate students to create an information literacy video, “Databases!” The video was used as part of the USF instruction program during the fall 2006 semester. In addition to an information literacy video, the video team also created a humorous rap video that included an anti-anti-plagiarism theme and highlighted USF library services. The video, entitled “The Chronicles of Libraria,” is currently available at the YouTube Web site. This presentation would share with attendees how the videos were created and the extent to which student ideas, technology skills, and creativity made it work. It will also include our research about how the videos were used as part of the instructional program and the undergraduate student reactions to the videos. Presenters would share the videos along with a video presentation by the undergraduate who edited and created the videos for the USF library as a community service project. Discussions with attendees would include the rationale for including students in the production of multimedia applications as well as the need for librarians to learn more about the latest tools for creating them

The Changing Nature of OA Journals: Helping Scholars Identify the Good, the Bad, and the Political

When the Open Access (OA) movement began at the beginning of the 21st century, librarians and select scholars saw it as a way to level the playing field by disseminating scholarly work freely, by easing the financial burden placed on rising subscription costs, and by offering alternatives to the traditional publishing model. Predatory and opportunistic OA publishers were quick to arrive on the scene, however, leaving faculty and researchers scrambling for a new and updated vetting process for selecting their publication targets. Jeffrey Beall’s blog and Beall’s List, along with other important publication directories, have become an important part of the effort to provide oversight and information to scholars about OA publishers. This paper will discuss OA controversies and review sources and opinions on the transformation of academic publishing efforts in the context of OA issues. Recent trends in librarianship demonstrate the need to educate authors on how to comprehensively research journals before submitting manuscripts to them, how to avoid predatory OA publishers, and where scholarly communication is going in terms of oversight and reputability of OA journals. This paper will briefly summarize many of the possible roles of the librarian, as well as discuss and evaluate the impact of Beall’s List on both the publishing world and librarianship

Autonomous Statistical Explanations and Natural Selection

Shapiro and Sober ([2007]) claim that Walsh, Ariew, Lewens, and Matthen (henceforth WALM) give a mistaken, a priori defense of natural selection and drift as epiphenomenal. Contrary to Shapiro and Sober’s claims, we first argue that WALM’s explanatory doctrine does not require a defense of epiphenomenalism. We then defend WALM’s explanatory doctrine by arguing that the explanations provided by the modern genetical theory of natural selection are ‘autonomous-statistical explanations’ analogous to Galton’s explanation of reversion to mediocrity and an explanation of the diffusion ofgases. We then argue that whereas Sober’s theory of forces is an adequate description of Darwin’s theory, WALM’s explanatory doctrine is required to understand how themodern genetical theory of natural selection explains large-scale statistical regularities

Autonomous Statistical Explanations and Natural Selection

Shapiro and Sober ([2007]) claim that Walsh, Ariew, Lewens, and Matthen (henceforth WALM) give a mistaken, a priori defense of natural selection and drift as epiphenomenal. Contrary to Shapiro and Sober’s claims, we first argue that WALM’s explanatory doctrine does not require a defense of epiphenomenalism. We then defend WALM’s explanatory doctrine by arguing that the explanations provided by the modern genetical theory of natural selection are ‘autonomous-statistical explanations’ analogous to Galton’s explanation of reversion to mediocrity and an explanation of the diffusion ofgases. We then argue that whereas Sober’s theory of forces is an adequate description of Darwin’s theory, WALM’s explanatory doctrine is required to understand how themodern genetical theory of natural selection explains large-scale statistical regularities

The Trials of Life: Natural Selection and Random Drift

We distinguish dynamical and statistical interpretations of evolutionary theory. We argue that only the statistical interpretation preserves the presumed relation between natural selection and drift. On these grounds we claim that the dynamical conception of evolutionary theory as a theory of forces is mistaken. Selection and drift are not forces. Nor do selection and drift explanations appeal to the (sub‐population‐level) causes of population level change. Instead they explain by appeal to the statistical structure of populations. We briefly discuss the implications of the statistical interpretation of selection for various debates within the philosophy of biology—the ‘explananda of selection’ debate and the ‘units of selection’ debate

Le cogito en 1634-1635

Je m’intéresse au cogito au XVIIe siècle avant sa formulation officielle par Descartes. Les raisonnements avancés par Jean de Silhon, correspondant de Descartes, et par le Jésuite Antoine Sirmond, publiés en 1634-1635, peuvent éclairer le cogito cartésien et l’atmosphère générale de l’augustinisme au XVIIe siècle. Cela peut nous permettre de mieux comprendre en quoi consiste la contribution de Descartes au cogito et d’interpréter ses critiques ultérieures.What I am concerned with here is the cogito in the 17th century before Descartes’ official formulation of it. The arguments published in 1634-1635, by Descartes’ correspondent Jean de Silhon and the Jesuit Antoine Sirmond, can help us understand Descartes’ conception of the cogito and the general Augustinian atmosphere in the 17th century; they provide us also with a better understanding of what was Descartes’ contribution to the cogito and of how to interpret the criticisms it received subsequently