Information Seeking in a Global Context. The Creeping Influence of Economic Globalization & Corporatization: Neoliberal Discourse in Canadian Academic Libraries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strategic planning documents are "key sites to institutional discourse" and reflect the public face of the library. This research explores the extent to which Neoliberal discourse permeates the strategic plans of three Canadian academic libraries, and examines how they are responding to global economic and political pressures. Through content analysis, the tension between libraries as a public good versus libraries as commodity is examined. Within this context, the disconnect between librarian core values and changing institutional values is also explored.Les documents de planification stratégique sont des « sites clés pour tout discours institutionnel » et reflètent le visage public d’une bibliothèque. Cette recherche tente de prendre la mesure dans laquelle le discours néolibéral imprègne les documents de planification stratégique de trois bibliothèques universitaires canadiennes, et examine comment ces institutions répondent à la montée et à la diversification des pressions économiques et politiques mondiales. En utilisant l'analyse de contenu et un regard critique, cette recherche exploratoire examine la tension entre la conception de la bibliothèque comme bien public et sa conception comme produit de marchandisation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".