MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006663994 · doi:10.1177/0961000620902247

Reading work as a diversity practice: A differentiated approach to reading promotion in academic libraries in North America

2020· article· en· W3006663994 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Librarianship and Information Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversity (politics)Reading (process)Promotion (chess)Context (archaeology)SociologyWork (physics)Public relationsLibrary sciencePolitical scienceComputer scienceHistoryPoliticsEngineeringAnthropologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article positions the practice of working with readers in academic libraries as a diversity practice and examines this practice through the lens of the Diversity by Design concept. We use Diversity by Design to propose and explicate a differentiated approach to reading promotion on campus, drawing attention to the broader and multiple meanings of diversity in the context of reading engagements. We look at the differentiated nature of readerships on campuses as an expression of inherent diversity in North American institutions of higher education and, by extension, academic libraries. We also make specific recommendations on how to give reading practices in academic libraries a boost and a new direction, befitting the diverse and eclectic nature of contemporary North American universities.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.076
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.237 · 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