Intellectual freedom: Waving and wavering across three national contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 1999 IFLA Statement on Libraries and Intellectual Freedom makes no explicit distinction between personal and professional ethics, though there are implicit indications that there may be divergence between professional and personal considerations. Across three national contexts (the USA, Canada, and the UK), we explore the gaps between professional and personal ethics, as well as how these gaps have been potentially exploited, addressed, or resolved. There have been waves of debate about intellectual freedom and social responsibility across these three national contexts. In the contemporary age, we see clashes around conceptions of neoliberalism, neutrality, expressive freedom, justice, diversity, equity, inclusion, and anti-racism. The divergence of opinion comes from both the left and the right. The gap between library rhetoric and how it is practiced on the ground in different contexts is visibly shifting and under increased scrutiny, certainly in the USA, Canada, and the UK.
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 | 0.025 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".