MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562716524 · doi:10.18438/b86d14

Expressing Intellectual Freedom: A Content Analysis of Catholic Library World from 1980 to 2015

2016· article· en· W2562716524 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCatholicism and Religious Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensorshipIntellectual freedomContext (archaeology)Reading (process)Library scienceIndex (typography)Professional associationSociologyContent analysisLawPolitical scienceMedia studiesHistoryComputer scienceSocial scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.086
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.211 · 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