Bibliographic record
Abstract
The proliferation, ubiquity, and growth of data, big data, and digital infrastructure raise a number of questions for library and information studies (LIS) practitioners, researchers, and educators. While some uncritically accept and embrace the idea that big data will fundamentally alter every sector of society including economics, politics, health care, and knowledge production, others are more critical of the data turn. Data can be contradictory in that it can be used for surveillance, impinge on privacy, be used for secondary purposes (often without consent), and can be totalizing in that we continually create data exhaust, it can be hacked, searched, aggregated, and preserved for years. Conversely, data can be used for the public good, to promote progressive social change, and to empower people. The overarching argument presented in this paper is that critical library and information studies must include critical data studies. To develop this argument, this paper explores the ontological nature of data and their contradictory implications and effects in terms of broader society, the academy, and in LIS research, education, and practice. Next, the philosophical foundations and the work being done in the budding area of critical data studies are presented (most notably work by Rob Kitchin). Finally, the intersections between critical data studies and LIS are discussed in terms of research methodologies, philosophical underpinnings, and application of critical social theory, values, and ethics using Dalton and Thatcher's seven data criticisms.
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 | 0.393 | 0.378 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.291 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.064 | 0.093 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.041 |
| Research integrity | 0.034 | 0.058 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".