Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on research into librarian participation on faculty association executive and collective bargaining teams at 46 Canadian universities at which librarians are in the same bargaining unit as professors. The goal of this study is to determine the extent of such participation on these key committees, whether such participation is mandated by governing documents or a matter of custom (or neither), and what barriers librarians face to such participation. The authors analyzed these associations’ constitutions and bylaws and then conducted interviews with faculty association leaders and librarian activists. Findings indicate that nearly half of the surveyed associations either have a mandated seat for librarians or make every effort to include librarians on their executive committees, and more than a third do the same for their collective bargaining teams. Many associations have had a librarian as faculty association president and a handful have had a librarian as chief negotiator. The most-cited barriers to taking on these leadership roles in the association are workload and the lack of or unsuitability of course release for librarians. The level of librarian participation in faculty associations across Canada is very encouraging, but many issues need to be addressed if librarians are to have a full seat at the table.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.262 | 0.058 |
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".