Bibliographic record
Abstract
This poster will discuss what is meant by “bullish*t” in libraries, as defined in a seminal talk given by Jane Schmidt in a 2018 keynote at the Canadian Association for Professional and Academic Librarians. The presenter will identify various types of BS perpetuated and created in libraries, highlighting such concepts as “innovation,” “leadership,” and “(ir)relevance.” The presenter seeks to answer the question "is BS ever beneficial to the library and it’s organizational culture?” Finally, the poster will discuss specific strategies for combating BS in one’s own library, including overcoming the "cult of busy". Participants will be encouraged to reflect on their own libraries and their own practice in order to engage with each other about the culture we create in libraries, and the positives and negatives we encounter. Although this poster has an academic library perspective, BS is a common situation in many organizational cultures, thus it may appeal to those who work in other types of libraries.
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 | 0.022 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".