A Survey Exploring the Perceptions of Academic Librarians as Researchers
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
This study examines the perceptions of academic librarian research at six Canadian prairie-province universities. An understanding of how librarian research is viewed and valued at academic institutions can lay the groundwork to improve the state of librarian research in the future. Surveys were sent to librarians and non-librarian faculty in the humanities, sciences, and social sciences at these universities to gather information about how both groups perceive academic librarian research. Thirty librarians and 30 non-librarian faculty responded to the survey. In general, research was viewed as an important and positive aspect of librarianship, though one that was of secondary importance to service. Non-librarian faculty largely lacked awareness about librarian research, and librarians reported being unsupported in their research needs by their institutions. Librarian research collaboration with non-librarian faculty was of high interest to both groups of respondents. The results of this survey highlight the importance of research to academic librarianship while indicating that there is room for further improvement by raising the profile of librarian research outside of the library, fostering collaborative research projects, and providing librarians with the support necessary to engage in research activities.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Incentives · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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