The Carnegie Corporation Advisory Group on Canadian College Libraries, 1930–35
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Carnegie Corporation of New York (CCNY) contributed signi cantly to the development of Canadian university and college libraries during the Great Depression. From 1932 to 1935, thirty-four institutions of higher education shared in library book grants totalling $214,800 as a result of a national (Canada and Newfoundland) examination conducted by an advisory group established by the CCNY. The ways in which the advisory group investigated and inspected potential recipients, evaluated whether they complied with conditions set, and distributed grants typically followed the policies and procedures established by an earlier American advisory group funded by the CCNY. Carnegie and university records document how nancial aid was awarded and used for the advancement of undergraduate print collections. Sources can also be used to study the Canadian group in relation to the role of American philanthropic college library work, attempts by Canadian administrators to adapt library collections and organization to local circumstances, and trends in the improvement of undergraduate library services on a national scale. RÉSUMÉ L’organisme The Carnegie Corporation of New York (CCNY) a contribué d’une manière signi- cative au développement des bibliothèques des universités et des collèges canadiens durant la grande dépression. De 1932 à 1935, trente-quatre institutions d’éducation supérieure se sont partagé des octrois totalisant 214 800 $ pour l’achat de livres. Ce montant a été établi lors d’une enquête nationale menée conjointement au Canada et à Terre-Neuve par un groupe de travail consultatif établi par le CCNY. Les manières de procéder de ce comité quant à l’inves- tigation et à la surveillance des institutions récipiendaires, l’évaluation du respect des conditions xées ainsi que la distribution des subventions s’appuient sur les politiques et procédures établies précédemment par un comité consultatif américain créé par le CCNY. Les documents provenant de la corporation Carnegie et des universités exposent comment l’aide nancière était accordée et utilisée pour l’enrichissement des collections des imprimés pour les étudiants du premier cycle. Ces sources peuvent aussi servir à étudier les relations du groupe canadien avec la philanthropie américaine en regard des bibliothèques. D’autres questions comme les tentatives des administrateurs canadiens pour harmoniser les collections des bibliothèques et les adapter aux besoins spéci ques de leur milieu, ainsi que la tendance à améliorer les services fournis par les bibliothèques aux étudiants de premier cycle à l’échelle canadienne, pourraient faire l’objet d’études ultérieures.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.070 | 0.012 |
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".