MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200315670 · doi:10.1108/rsr-07-2021-0036

Library response to Black Liberation Collective: a review of student calls for change and implications for anti-racist initiatives in academic libraries

2021· review· en· W4200315670 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amy Faye Bocko, LuMarie Guth, Micha Broadnax

Bibliographic record

VenueReference Services Review · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousEquity (law)Inclusion (mineral)SolidaritySociologyDiversity (politics)Political scienceWhite (mutation)Media studiesPublic relationsLibrary scienceGender studiesLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose In September 2015 protests erupted at the University of Missouri following a series of racist incidents on campus and culminating in the resignation of the university president in November 2015. In solidarity with the protests student activists at universities across the United States and Canada organized into the Black Liberation Collective and held the first #StudentBlackoutOut day of protests on university campuses on November 15 followed by the publication of lists of demands to over 80 colleges in 28 states, the District of Columbia and Canada in the hopes of creating more-equitable and inclusive institutions. These demands shared similarity in requests for equity as those put forth during the Black Campus Movement of the late 1960s which led to the establishment of Black studies and cultural centers at colleges and universities. Academic libraries in particular were included with several demands to better serve the Black Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) community. Design/methodology/approach While librarianship has largely been a historically White profession, libraries have undertaken many diversity and inclusion initiatives over the years. This article will examine seven case studies concerning college and university libraries addressing demands collated by the Black Liberation Collective in 2015. Six years out from the publication of the lists, we will evaluate statements issued by the libraries and posted on their websites, the promises that have been made to address inequities and the ensuing actions the libraries have taken to create a welcoming, inclusive community. Findings The authors examine seven institutions where demands from student activists speak directly to the library. We examine the library's response to make changes and subsequent actions. Originality/value The authors take a journalist approach to their research and examination of library responses.

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 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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.019
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0170.012
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.005
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 head0.256
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReference Services ReviewSame topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207