MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

From Library Work to Library Science: Forming Canadian Librarianship, 1920-1960

2019· article· en· W2957628869 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Lorne Bruce

Bibliographic record

VenuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsStewardship (theology)Library scienceBachelorService (business)FeminismWork (physics)Political scienceSociologyPublic servicePublic relationsEngineeringPoliticsBusinessLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the discourse presented about a distinctive chapter in Canadian librarianship when it emerged as a modern professional career between 1920 and 1960. During the four decades following the World War I (WWI), librarians sought to develop an intermediary role between different clienteles and the world of print. At the same time, library science evolved as a university-based discipline grounded in the knowledge and techniques of collecting, organizing, and managing printed records for public consumption. Three prominent issues are examined: the question of acceptable library education and training, the primacy of a service ethic, and issues surrounding the profession’s female-intensity during first-wave feminism. Before the 1960s, a two-term bachelor’s degree in library science was the standard requirement to gain entry into the profession. There was an identifiable blend of public-spirited service and print oriented stewardship to librarianship serving diverse clienteles in municipalities, universities and colleges, schools, businesses, and governments. As well, librarianship was a female-intensive career that strove to attain better public recognition. While there were many influences on the development of librarianship, the regional considerations, the everpresent English-French cultural divide, and the American precedents were very important. All these interconnected elements changed after 1960 as the core knowledge of librarians began to transition to library and information science, as they adopted new values, as the importance of print resources lessened, and as second-wave feminism came into being.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0110.089
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and ResearchSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207