Evolving practices and professional identity: How the new ways we work can reshape us as professionals and a profession
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professional identities provide a lens through which to understand ourselves and our professional community. Individual practitioners may find that shifts in their own professional identities lead them to redefine their profession and those moving into new types of roles or engaging in new tasks may strive to alter the direction of the profession at large. This paper’s first objective is to provide insights into how professional identity development occurs and how the emergence of a new or unusual take on the library and information science profession based on professional experiences working in non-traditional roles can be seen as both an opportunity and a threat to the library and information science profession, using the experience of library and information science graduates working in non-library roles as a lens. The second objective is to translate the experiences of library and information science graduates working in non-traditional roles into recommendations for promoting diversity in the definition of the profession.
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 | 0.027 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.113 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.035 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".