Health Sciences Librarianship's Status as a Profession Is Unclear, According to Its Members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Review of: Koenig, R. A., Rodriguez, V. A., & Sima, A. P. (2021). Attitudinal attributes of professionalism in health sciences librarians. Journal of Library Administration, 61(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2020.1845544 Objective – To determine health sciences librarians' attitudes toward professionalism and to examine relationships between professionalism attributes and participant characteristics as defined by the Richard H. Hall Professionalism Inventory. Design – Cross-sectional online survey using the Richard H. Hall Professionalism Inventory. Setting – Electronic mailing lists of the Medical Library Association (MLA), the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL), the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Health Sciences Interest Group, and the Canadian Health Libraries Association (CHLA). Subjects – There were 430 participants. Methods – The online survey, created in REDCap, was distributed electronically across multiple mailing lists during June and July of 2019. Quantitative analysis included descriptive statistics and ANOVA conducted in R with reliability determined by Cronbach's alpha. Main Results – Professionalism scores for health sciences librarians were lowest in public service and self-regulation, and highest in professional organization as referent, autonomy, and sense of calling. Individuals with a degree in health sciences scored lower on a sense of calling than individuals with Library and Information Science (LIS) degrees. Faculty benefits such as tenure decreased sense of calling. There were statistically significant differences according to role (e.g., archives, administration). Subject specialty librarians had lower scores in most attributes. Conclusion – Health sciences librarianship does not clearly meet the criteria of a profession. Its heterogeneity of specializations and receptiveness to diverse backgrounds and perspectives are possible threats to its ability to create a cohesive identity. Further, duties that can be considered non-library work appear to correlate with lower professionalism scores, even when they are associated with faculty status.
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 | 0.017 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".