Bibliographic record
Abstract
Examining the response of a library during a tumultuous period not only provides insight about the library’s past, but also allows the library to improve its actions to better serve its communities in the future. The summer of 2020 marked such a period in American history. Amidst the cries for systemic change following the murder of George Floyd, the social media profiles of individuals and organizations alike–including academic libraries–flooded with anti-racist reading lists, informational articles, webinars, and other such educational materials. How do we qualify these resources? How do we understand the roles that academic libraries play in this resource sharing, and how do we use that information to assess their involvement? Building upon Dr. Bharat Mehra and Dr. Rebecca Davis’ (2015) Strategic Diversity Manifesto, this talk describes the beginning of a project meant to determine how academic libraries can examine their online presences: where and how they have raised their voices, incorporated the voices of others, or stayed silent.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".