MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200152047 · doi:10.33137/cjalrcbu.v7.36367

Articulating Our Very Unfreedom: The Impossibility of Refusal in the Contemporary Academy

2021· article· en· W4200152047 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lydia Zvyagintseva

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Academic Librarianship · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUniversity Challenges and Reforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyImpossibilityContradictionMaterialismLawPolitical scienceEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper begins and ends with a provocation: I argue that refusal in librarianship is both impossible and necessary. Reviewing examples of crisis narratives which permeate both American and Canadian universities, I take a materialist perspective on the idea of refusal within academic librarianship. To do so, I draw on the work of Audra Simpson, Kyle Whyte, Eve Tuck, Mario Tronti, and Rinaldo Walcott to examine the sites of impossibility of refusal in the practice of academic librarianship within contemporary neoliberal education institutions. Then, I analyze the totality of capitalism in setting the limit for the practice of refusal through case studies of direct action, including the Icelandic Women’s Strike of 1975 and the 2020 Scholar Strike Canada. Finally, I identify private property and history as key frames for understanding the contradiction at the heart of refusal of crisis. As such, any refusal that does not address the centrality of labour and private property relations can thus be understood as harm reduction rather than emancipation. Ultimately, I argue that for librarians to refuse would require an abandonment of liberalism as librarianship’s guiding philosophy, and a redefinition of librarianship as such.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaScience and technology studies
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualmedium
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0520.254
Scholarly communication0.0300.027
Open science0.0040.023
Research integrity0.0110.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Science and technology studies

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Commentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Academic LibrarianshipSame topicUniversity Challenges and ReformsCategoryScience and technology studiesFrench-language works237,207