Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a democratic and democratizing institution, libraries have a mission to connect the public with necessary information, as well as providing free and open access to the library for all citizens. As disadvantaged people become a core user base for libraries, some libraries have begun programs to connect these people with needed social services, which ties in with librarianship’s value of promoting social justice. In the United States and Canada this has mostly been through the hiring of social workers or public health workers within public libraries, or through outreach and engagement programs focused on improving employment prospects for communities. While libraries work to become true community centers, can we expect to see more libraries connecting users with social services? And if so, how can they best accomplish this task? This paper will discuss the history of the trend and existing analysis from the perspective of librarianship and social service professionals. It will then explore current activities around the globe, discovered through surveys and interviews conducted by the author. Based on the history, existing analysis and current activities, the author will propose best practices for connecting disadvantaged library users with social services through the library.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".