The Roots of Community: A Local Librarian's Resource for Discovering, Documenting and Sharing the History of Library Services to African Americans in Their Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intended for current library professionals, this toolkit provides a theoretical basis for completing public history projects about libraries and explores specific project types, selected best practices and related resources. It divides into three major sections: Part 1, “Planning,” Part 2 “Gathering” and Part 3, “Sharing.” Respectively, these sections cover the preparation, collection and communication tasks of research projects and, where appropriate, offer readers several types of potentially useful resources. Many of these resources—forms, letters, standards, examples of evidence—were used for the author’s Roots of Community project and appear as examples of resources deemed suitable for that project. In other instances, the booklet cites examples of other but similar projects. The project types explored are generally inexpensive, produce (in most cases) permanent deliverables, and can be completed at any pace and/or attempted by public libraries of nearly any size. Libraries may attempt projects on their own or in partnership with local museums, archives or historical societies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.014 |
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".