Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Members of the Advisory Committee are enthused about the priority accorded intellectual freedom in the second draft of CLA’s proposed future plan. Under “Why we make a difference,” the very first reference is to “improving access to information for Canadians and working to protect intellectual freedom by advocating for the development of policies and position statements.” Within this broad framework, we think an important question for the CLA membership at large to consider is the scope and boundaries of the Association’s intellectual freedom policies, interests and advocacy. That is, does the membership support a “library focus” on library censorship issues? Or does the membership embrace a broader societal perspective grounded in Charter freedoms and responsibilities for all Canadians? There appear to be many nuances represented among CLA members. For example, some (if not all) school librarians see their role as promoting and teaching intellectual freedom in the context of citizenship responsibility. The CLA Award for the Advancement of Intellectual Freedom in Canada has several times been given to recognize contributions by individuals and groups beyond library borders. CLA itself is a member of the umbrella organization called the Book and Periodical Council, which among other initiatives sponsors Freedom to Read Week across Canada. When does a freedom of expression issue become a library issue? Can we comfortably snip off the library dimension of civil liberties? And if we do, are we open to the charge of being overly self-serving? It seems the media are often caught in the same self-serving boat – delighted to inflame library censorship controversies but holier-thanthou when their own press freedoms are under attack. In any event, are CLA members interested in broadening our civil liberties alliances and partnerships, or more comfortable with the more traditional library focus? There are many issues awaiting your perspective. Some are addressed by colleagues below – for example, the G20 Summit protests and the case for workplace speech. But there are so many others about which the Advisory Committee needs an understanding in order to be able to take action and make recommendations – for example, the WikiLeaks controversy, defamation suits and libel chill, transgender rights, campus clashes, saving indigenous languages, Internet neutrality, filtering, government criticism of works of art, film and television ratings, Canada Border Services censorship, decriminalization of prostitution, access to government information, hate speech and the human rights commissions, or any of the inevitable condemnations from time to time of authors, cartoonists, bloggers, journalists and political activists at home and around the world.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».