Information technology, change and information professionals’ identity construction: A discourse analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Information and communication technologies (ICTs) are often identified by librarians and information professionals as being a driving force behind the way they perform their day‐to‐day activities and how they interact with their clients. This study considers the role ICTs play in the shaping and constructing of the identities of librarians. Using data gathered from interviews, email discussion lists, and the professional literature, this study employed a discourse analysis to examine the language resources librarians use when constructing their professional identities, with particular attention to the role of ICTs in this construction. ICTs both challenged and enhanced the identities of librarians. While the changes related to ICTs have left librarians feeling insecure about their professional positions, they have also opened up new roles and opportunities for librarians to pursue. Librarians have a service‐oriented identity that is influenced by ICT‐related changes affecting their work. These changes will challenge and benefit librarians as they engage with ICTs and determine how, if at all, they can be incorporated into their day‐to‐day practice.
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 | 0.025 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".