Expressing Intellectual Freedom: A Content Analysis of Catholic Library World from 1980 to 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective – Professional librarians have varying values relating to the topic of intellectual freedom that may or may not align with the American Library Association’s (ALA) policies defining professional expectations on the topic. The personally held values and beliefs of Roman Catholic librarians and those working in libraries affiliated with Roman Catholicism are worthy of study to determine how personal religious values may translate into professional practice. The objective of this paper is to ascertain how frequently and in what context the topics of intellectual freedom and censorship were expressed in articles published in Catholic Library World (CLW), the professional journal of the Catholic Library Association (CLA) from 1980 to 2015. Published content on these topics can be used as evidence to determine how this population discusses the concept of intellectual freedom.
 
 Methods – Articles relevant to these topics were retrieved from the American Theological Library Association Catholic Periodical and Literature Index (ATLA CPLI) and Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA) databases by conducting keyword searches using the terms “intellectual freedom” and censorship. Each retrieved publication was analyzed by counting the number of times the phrase “intellectual freedom” and the root censor* occurred. Through a deep reading of each publication, statements containing these search terms were then coded as positive, negative, or neutral, establishing a context for each occurrence.
 
 Results – The majority of published content supported intellectual freedom and opposed censorship. Negative content typically occurred in publications about children or school libraries. Additionally, CLW contributors did express a certain level of conflict between personally held religious values and professional values.
 
 Conclusions – This study adds to the limited research available on the intersection of personally held religious values and professional values. Further research is needed to gain a better understanding of the conflict between values amongst Catholic librarians, librarians of other faith traditions, and librarians in general.
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 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".