Addressing Patron-Perpetrated Sexual Harassment: Opportunities for Intersectional Feminist and Critical Race Pedagogy and Praxis in the LIS Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is becoming increasingly clear that sexual harassment is a serious problem within libraries. In particular, patron-perpetrated sexual harassment is the sexual harassment of library staff by the very patrons they endeavor to support. In this paper we identify and apply intersectional feminist and critical race and whiteness theories that unearth the structural underpinnings that support patron-perpetrated sexual harassment. We do so both to make this issue visible as well as to offer theoretical frameworks that might be taken up by LIS educators to address this topic within their classrooms. A comprehensive and nuanced examination of gender, race, and their intersections in LIS is necessary to recognize, name, and resist acts of gender-based violence such as patron-perpetrated sexual harassment. We call for a slow interconnected pedagogical approach that connects theory to practice, supports the use of critical theory to rigorously interpret the core values of librarianship, and is supported by the voices and perspectives of those working in 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 | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".