MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Designing the Diversity of Canadian Libraries: Excerpts from the CARL Inclusion Perspectives Webinar by Racialized Library Colleagues

2022· article· en· W4311236721 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Allan Cho, Afra Bolefski, Cecilia Tellis, Lei Jin, Maha Kumaran

Bibliographic record

VenuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsRoyal Saskatchewan MuseumUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of OttawaUniversity of ManitobaToronto Metropolitan UniversityLibrary and Archives CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Diversity (politics)Library scienceEquity (law)SociologyRacismAcademic libraryAccreditationAdvice (programming)Political scienceMedia studiesPublic relationsGender studiesLawAnthropologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Five academic librarians from libraries that represent the Canadian Academic Research Libraries (CARL) were invited to share their experiences as racialized librarians. In 2021, the Canadian Academic Research Libraries (CARL) hosted an Inclusion Perspectives Webinar Series, organized by CARL’s Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Working Group (EDIWG) and the contents of this paper are presentations by these librarians who were invited to speak on systems, structures, and policies needed to dismantle racism; practical strategies to attract and retain racialized library employees; accreditation issues; and provide advice for what Canadian library leaders can start doing immediately.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0510.012
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.254 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and ResearchSame topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207