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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that there is a lack of diverse professionals within the field of library and information science (LIS). As the entry point for future LIS professionals, university library programs are in a unique position to proactively address this issue. Websites serve as digital representations of Canadian LIS programs and are several programs’ main recruitment tool. This project adds to the growing body of Canadian focused data on diversity within LIS, and it is the first study to exclusively observe Canadian LIS higher learning institutions. Through a content analysis of Canadian LIS program websites, this project seeks to explore the following research questions: (1) How are Canadian LIS programs addressing issues like diversity, inclusion, and equity?; and (2) How do the LIS programs’ diversity initiatives relate to their recruitment of students? Emergent themes drawn from literature related to diversity efforts in higher education were analyzed alongside data collected from websites of LIS programs in order to frame the larger discussion of how issues like diversity, inclusion, and equity are addressed within higher learning institutions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.234 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it