MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562088961 · doi:10.5860/llm.v30i1.7109

Calling all Academic Librarians to Lead!: Developing and Using Inside Talent to Stay Ahead

2015· article· en· W2562088961 on OpenAlexaff
Giovanna Badia

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary Leadership & Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFace (sociological concept)Service (business)Plan (archaeology)Academic libraryLead (geology)Public relationsMedical educationSociologyPsychologyBusinessManagementPolitical scienceComputer scienceLibrary scienceMarketingMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article employs case studies, as well as observations and research findings from the published literature, to explore how sponsored projects and service in professional associations can be used to develop and apply the leadership potential of academic librarians. Tapping into the leadership potential of its librarians can help academic libraries be proactive in the face of change, plan for succession, and retain their professionals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.007
Scholarly communication0.0170.010
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.359
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.065 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary Leadership & ManagementSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207