Succession planning process that includes visible minority librarians
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 – The purpose of this paper is to stress the importance of including visible minority librarians in the process of succession planning in academic libraries. In Canada visible minorities is the accepted term used for librarians of color. This paper identifies the challenges faced by these librarians in putting their names forward for administrative/leadership positions and proposes ideas on how to include these librarians in the succession planning processes so the leadership/administrative pool can also reflect the multicultural student demographics. Design/methodology/approach – This paper is an extensive study of the literature on succession planning and visible minority or ethnic librarians in the academic libraries. Literature shows that the senior administration of academic libraries does not reflect the population demographic it serves. Findings – This paper shows that visible minority librarians are not proactively found, recruited, retained. They are certainly not being included in succession planning processes. It suggests that academic libraries follow certain processes and strategies to include these librarians in their succession planning. Research limitations/implications – The paper focusses widely on North American visible minorities, but this information is applicable to any community with visible minorities. Practical implications – Libraries can start thinking about creating strategies for including visible minority libraries in their succession planning processes. Originality/value – This paper addresses a gap in the literature. Literature review showed that there are no papers that speak to the importance of including minority librarians in the succession planning processes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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