Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to provide an historical perspective and current guidance for youth librarians collecting graphic novels for teens. Design/methodology/approach The paper provides a brief review of the historical issues involved with censorship/intellectual freedom and comics and of current teen‐oriented graphic novels with gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning of sexual orientation (GLBTQ) content in Canada and the USA. It also provides a context for negotiating intellectual freedom and collection management policy issues, and suggestions for targeted acquisitions of teen graphic novels with GLTBQ content. Findings The paper provides a brief overview of US and Canadian censorship of comics, including how this legacy affects today's market. It recognizes the difficulty of obtaining information and recommendations for teen‐appropriate graphic novels containing GLBTQ content, and makes suggestions for core collection items. Research limitations/implications Only English sources from the USA and Canada are reviewed. Francophone Canadian literature is relevant but outside of the scope of this paper. Practical implications The paper is a useful source of information for the librarian looking for collection development suggestions, and/or for the librarian dealing with or preparing against intellectual freedom challenges to graphic novels or GLBTQ material for teens. Originality/value This paper furthers discussion of censorship of graphic novels and of GLBTQ material, and provides concrete suggestions to librarians developing a teen graphic novel collection. The issue is timely, as the graphic novel industry is booming and the ALA has documented an increasing number of challenges to graphic novels in libraries. Few previous papers on graphic novels or comics have included Canadian content, although the Canada‐American library worlds, publishing industries and legal codes are historically and currently intertwined.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.003 |
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".