Legally satisfied: a survey of law library workers and job satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors surveyed law library workers across Canada in an attempt to discover whether they were satisfied with their jobs, and to compare these findings to previous surveys of those working in other types of libraries.Findings indicated that while law library workers are generally quite satisfied with their work, issues were discovered including salary, stress, and opportunities for advancement.Law libraries are quite different from many other types of libraries, and those who work in them might be employed by a wide variety of institutions, including universities, government libraries, courthouses, private law firms, prisons, law associations and private companies.The work itself is also quite specialized but the backgrounds of those working in law libraries may range from very little post-secondary education to multiple master's degrees and even law degrees.Regardless of background, unique training is necessary to understand the intricacies of law library work.In addition, patrons also may range from students to members of the general public, to lawyers and law professors, each adding different dimensions to the work that is done in the library.Bearing all this in mind, we wondered if law library workers in Canada were any more or less satisfied than those who worked in other types of libraries.We also wondered if the sources of job satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) would be similar to those already welldocumented in other types of librariesmainly issues regarding salary, staffing, and budgets.We assumed that for the most part, law library workers would be mainly satisfied with their jobs, but wondered if their niche knowledge and the specialized nature of their jobs would have any detectable influence on their being more or less satisfied than those working in other types of libraries.We also wondered if the satisfaction levels would differ among those working in different types of law library settings, and whether the ages of workers would be an important factor.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".