Academic Librarians with Disabilities: Job Perceptions and Factors Influencing Positive Workplace Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there has been increasing attention to diversity in librarianship, little attention has been paid to librarians with disabilities. This study uses a mixed method approach, using results from a survey and in-depth follow-up interviews, to investigate some of the characteristics of Canadian university librarians with disabilities, their job satisfaction, their perceptions of their workplace climate for diversity and accessibility, and the factors that influence their workplace perceptions. Although librarians with disabilities report a generally high level of job satisfaction, they are less satisfied with some areas related to workplace stress and job flexibility than librarians without disabilities. Librarians with disabilities also report less confidence that their workplace is inclusive, values diversity, and is understanding of disability-related issues. Factors influencing the work experience of university librarians with disabilities include a collegial environment, supportive colleagues and supervisors, job flexibility and autonomy, clear priorities and reporting structures, reasonable expectations about workload, time pressures and short deadlines, effective structures and processes to ensure accessibility, an accessible physical environment, and, most importantly, an understanding of disability and awareness of disability-related workplace issues.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".