On the Importance of Theory in LIAS: A Review of Literature on Radical Librarianship in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the decline of social services in welfare states, libraries have come to represent the final frontier of democracy amongst privatizing public institutions. This view of libraries is especially prevalent in the media but is more carefully analyzed in critical LIAS (library, information, and archival studies). Because of the urgency of the position that librarianship holds in our society, social-justice-oriented perspectives have flourished in the library setting. This paper overviews the state of radical librarianship in Canada through a collection and analysis of resources on said subject. It argues for the importance of theoretical thinking in radical librarianship, that challenges the epistemological paradigms that dominate LIAS and acknowledges the ongoing institutional violence perpetuated by the library and information sector. With respect to the value of intellectual labour, the intention of this paper is to encourage further inquiry into the subject of radical librarianship so as to continue nurturing these pockets of dissent.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".