Is that source reliable/credible? Well, let's take a look at who made it.
The role of expertise in evaluation sources has been a part of information literacy from the beginning. What the Framework has done is to take that concept and greatly expand and elaborate on it. Authority is Constructed and Contextual goes beyond just expertise to looking at authority as a socially constructed concept. So, a person's authority my vary greatly depending on the particular context or whom you ask. A scholar, a politician, a journalist, and a religious figure might all have authority, but but not the same amount in every situation.
Authority is Constructed and Contextual has close ties to three other frames. It shares a strong connection with Information Creation as a Process, because both are integral to the idea of evaluating sources. It overlaps with Scholarship as Conversation, because authority (in the form of expertise) is a key concept to understanding scholarship. It relates to Information Has Value in a more conceptual way, which is the emphasis the Framework puts on understanding the social context in which information is created. That theme is most strongly felt in those two frames, plus Information Creation as a Process.
It might surprise those who teach information literacy, especially librarians, that authority did not have a very prominent place in the Standards. It is only mentioned in two learning outcomes under a single performance indicator of Standard Three:
Performance Indicator 2. The information literate student articulates and applies initial criteria for evaluating both the information and its sources.
a. Examines and compares information from various sources in order to evaluate reliability, validity, accuracy, authority, timeliness, and point of view or bias.
d. Recognizes the cultural, physical, or other context within which the information was created and understands the impact of context on interpreting the information.
I would say that if the Framework as a whole has an overarching theme, outcome d comes very close to expressing it.
I found it difficult to write outcomes for multiple-choice questions for this frame. The focus on the contextual nature of authority does not lend itself well to questions that need have one obvious correct answer.
Students will be able to connect common types of authority to specific formats/source types.
Students will be able to identify types of authority accepted in academic settings (or in a specific social context).
Students will be able to use credentials as indicators of authority.
Students will be able to indicate source types (or journals or people) that are considered authoritative in discipline X.
Students will be able to list types of people who might have authority on a specific topic.
Students will be able to discuss what types of authority are respected in a specific social context.
Students will be able to use authority as a criterion for evaluating sources.
Students will be able to compare the authority of different formats (e.g., scholarly, media, web/blog). Also Information Creation as Process
Students will be able to describe the role of authority in online/social media settings.
Students will be able to discuss what constitutes authority in discipline X.
Students will be able to list/discuss types of authority appropriate to a specific research project.
Students will be able to evaluate potential sources with a critical perspective on authority.
Students will be able to select sources whose authority is appropriate to the research topic and assignment parameters.
Students will be able to incorporate multiple/varied perspectives.