New perspectives on community library development in Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to discuss the constraints of and opportunities for the role of African community libraries in development, using an ecological framework for library development. Design/methodology/approach – Drawing on a review of the literature and the three authors’ own experiences, the paper critically examines community libraries, mainly from Uganda and Ethiopia, and frames the analysis within an ecological framework of library development. Findings – There are many examples of community libraries that realize various elements of the ecological framework (context/environment, equity/social justice, partnerships/interactions, and action/research). Practical implications – The ecological framework further developed in this paper helps community library leaders to critically examine their programmes and services and develop strategies for further growth, and suggests closer collaboration between community librarians, local communities, and researchers. Originality/value – This paper addresses the need to move beyond community library research on the predominant outputs (library statistics) and outcomes (societal value/impact) models, adding a critical perspective of the larger social and political structures that limit and shape the development of community libraries.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".