Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose While gender and librarianship is a perennially popular topic of research, relatively little has been published on the work experiences of male librarians. What does exist has often been extracted from broader studies. There have only been a handful of instances in which the experiences of male librarians were particularly sought and synthesized. This study is a continuation of research in decades past to capture and describe the work experience of male librarians in a predominantly female profession. Design/methodology/approach For this study, an anonymous online survey was conducted asking for the experiences of male-identifying reference librarians. In total, 109 responses were received, coded and parsed for trends and useful observations. Findings In line with previous studies, about three-quarters of male librarians reported that their gender was a not a significant factor in their professional work. This lack of change over several decades is in itself remarkable. Nearly a quarter reported gender-based issues in their work, and many reported a lack of organizational support. Originality/value There is a dearth of research particular to male librarianship, and few opportunities or venues for their experiences to be captured in a qualitative manner. It is hoped that this paper will raise the visibility of challenges faces by this sometimes neglected group.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".