Bibliographic record
Abstract
Librarians have bemoaned the constant clatter overheard from commentators that libraries are obsolete and no longer relevant. This observation is contrary to the lived experiences of those that serve in and depend upon public and academic libraries. A call to action challenges librarians everywhere to change this narrative by intentionally sharing stories of their essential work, service, community building… with anyone who will listen. An annotated list of readings and streaming videos is provided that builds on the inspirational work of David Lankes, Lisa Peet, Lance Werner, Mark Smith, Shamichael Hallman, Catherine Murray-Must, Michael Stephens and others. Libraries are observed to be places of transformative change. Librarians are found to be passionate, courageous and indispensable. Story telling is a powerful instrument for librarians and people that volunteer and serve in libraries to make the seemingly invisible work of libraries - more visible.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.046 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 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".