Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academic librarians3 working in Canadian universities have been mostly informed about the concept of academic status by the predominantly American library literature that focuses on faculty status for librarians. !us, when asked, many Canadian academic librarians assume that they have faculty status. However, the overwhelming majority of Canadian academic librarians do not o#cially have faculty status, the single documented exception being the librarians at Laurentian University.4 Technically, faculty status equates to the status held by teaching faculty in terms of rights (entitlement to ranks, promotion, tenure,5 compensation, leaves, and research funds), responsibilities (the same processes of evaluation and comparable standards for promotion and tenure), acceptance of the status by the institution as a whole, and participation in the governance of the institution.6 Academic status, on the other hand, is recognition that the duties performed are integral to the academic mission of the institution but that Academic Status for Canadian Academic Librarians: A Brief History
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.004 |
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".