Conceptions of Research Among Academic Librarians and Archivists
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academic librarians and archivists occupy a unique role as researchers and as practitioners who support faculty and student researchers. However, the ways in which librarians and archivists think about research is largely unexamined, while faculty conceptions of research have been studied extensively. In this study, we analyzed drawings and interviews of 25 Canadian academic librarians and archivists and identified six conceptions of research: research is a shared, community experience; research leads to learning and growth; research is influenced by personal and professional experience; research is a process involving interrelated components; research involves refining and answering a question; research by librarians and archivists is not “real” research. Our analysis also shows that librarians and archivists experience research in much the same way as faculty researchers. These findings represent a new understanding of librarians and archivists as researchers, and are a contribution to the literature on conceptions of research more broadly. The six conceptions of research will help librarians and archivists think in new ways about their roles as researchers and as practitioners.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it