Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adopted in the late 1930s, the Library Bill of Rights grounded the profession in the core value of intellectual freedom. This core value was challenged in the 1930s, the 1960s, the 1990s, and again in recent years by calls for social responsibility within our ranks. The re-occurrent discomfort with upholding intellectual freedom is particularly evident today in the case of public library third party meeting room bookings by controversial speakers. Both the Toronto Public Library and the Vancouver Public Library (as well as the Edmonton Public Library for lending its support) have come under scrutiny by both specific voices within the field as well as the community more broadly. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last time, that publicly funded libraries are faced with controversy surrounding intellectual freedom. Using critical information theory, this presentation examines important questions: How is intellectual freedom defined, redefined and confined today? What is the relationship between the core value of intellectual freedom and sister core values such as social responsibility, diversity and democracy? How do we uphold professional ethics (e.g., IFLA Code for Librarians and Other Information Workers) in instances when our personal, professional, institutional and/or association commitments do not align? As a 2019-20 SLIS research assistant, these questions are rooted in my ongoing academic explorations with Dr. Samek of the nature and extent LIS curricula (for both professionals and paraprofessionals) prepares graduates to negotiate the perpetually complicated core value of intellectual freedom from a position of confidence, and not fear, defensiveness or divisiveness.
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 | 0.034 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.050 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.044 | 0.044 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.033 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.007 |
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".