A “Partnership” for the Professional Development of Librarian Researchers
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
In this article the authors introduce the Librarians’ Research Partnership (LRP), founded in 2013, at McGill and Concordia University Libraries. The Partnership was inspired by the Canadian Association of Research Libraries’ Librarians’ Research Institute (CARL LRI) which was attended by three of the authors in 2012 and is described here from the point of view of the participants. The authors touch upon the research culture at McGill and Concordia Libraries and discuss barriers and supports for research as prominent themes in the literature on the research role of Canadian academic librarians. The formation of the LRP and the eight subsequent meetings are explained in detail, as well as the factors that made the LRP a successful initiative between the two universities: physical proximity, similarity of working environments, and common organizational culture. The article also includes a discussion of how the LRP’s philosophy might diverge from that of the LRI.
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 | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.061 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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