What the World Needs Now? Love as a Lens on Library and Information Work Today
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
Library and information studies has yet to see a committed theoretical analysis of the social, relational, and political workings of love, as a force that both explicitly and implicitly underpins practices and rhetoric within our discipline. Understanding the “force” that is love requires analysis of social, or collective, relations. As such, love provides a distinctive lens onto structures and power dynamics that can illuminate and address divergent challenges within LIS and the world at large. This paper draws on selected literature in order to present such an analysis for the first time. La bibliotheconomie et les sciences de l'information a besoin d'une analyse theorique engagee du fonctionnement social, relationnel et politique de l'amour, comme force qui sous-tend a la fois explicitement et implicitement les pratiques et la rhetorique au sein de notre discipline. Comprendre la «force» qu'est l'amour necessite une analyse des relations sociales ou collectives. En tant que tel, l'amour fournit une lentille distinctive sur les structures et les dynamiques de pouvoir qui peuvent eclairer et relever des defis divergents au sein de la discipline et dans le monde en general. Cet article s'appuie sur une selection de litterature afin de presenter pour la premiere fois une telle analyse.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.082 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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