Something to Talk About: Re-thinking Conversations on Research Culture in Canadian Academic Libraries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Canadian academic librarians have experienced an increasing presence in faculty associations and unions, expectations of librarian scholarship and research have increased as well. However, literature from the past several decades on academic librarianship and scholarship focuses heavily on obstacles faced by librarians in their research endeavours, which suggests that the research environment at many academic libraries has stalled. Though many have called for the development of a research culture, little has been said regarding how the profession might go about encouraging this development, and conversations often become mired in the contemplation of obstacles. As a way to move forward, we suggest building upon pre-existing strengths by adopting the model of “intellectual communities” put forward by Walker et al. They describe four qualities necessary for strong “intellectual communities”: shared purpose; diverse and multigenerational community; flexible and forgiving community; and respectful and generous community. Although these qualities are often embedded within our libraries, they need to be made a conscious part of our research environment through reflection and conversation. Working toward strong research cultures requires that we focus less on obstacles and more on reflective and productive activities that build on our strengths.
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 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 | 0.021 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".