Bibliographic record
Abstract
Notions of access have become pervasive in how we currently speak about libraries and their democratic character, as well as in the ways in which we have come to speak about emerging media technologies and, in both cases, access has very clearly come to mean making things available. Although access as it relates to the library is a relatively recent phenomenon, libraries and access have nearly become synonymous. Yet the presumption of access often obscures lingering problems of inaccessibility to various services and spaces for particular classes of people. This article will examine and document the ways in which the normative priority of “access” has been architecturally materialized within the contemporary library. Through a close analysis of Montreal’s Grande Bibliothèque and the institution’s trajectory from conception to building, this article will explore how architecture has, in part, defined and delimited what sort of institutional public space the Grande Bibliothèque creates. Concepts employed within the preliminary conceptual design phase of the project, such as openness, access, freedom, and publicness, took on new, contradictory meanings when the library materialized, to reveal issues surrounding restriction, control, inaccessibility, and surveillance. I want to lay stress on the process of design and how its various agencies shaped a particular institutional incarnation of the library.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".