National library associations as reflected in their codes of ethics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose There are numerous professional associations for librarians and libraries. A small proportion of these have promulgated codes of ethics. These codes of ethics vary along several dimensions. Often the code reflects the social, political, or professional mandate of its organization. This paper aims to address ethics codes and their functions in professional associations that have individuals as members. Design/methodology/approach It is suggested that for these organizations there are several different types of ethics codes. This paper addresses the four most common types. The oldest code (American Library Association), one of the newest (Association des Bibliothécaires Français), and two of a more average age (Canadian Library Association and Colegio de Bibliotecarios de Chile) are compared and considered in detail. Findings The paper finds that, while most library and information professionals share similar values, as reflected in their codes of ethics, the application of those codes varies widely. Originality/value The paper provides useful information on codes of ethics for libraries and librarians.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it