Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on the data from the Visible Minority Librarians of Canada Network (ViMLoC) 2021 Survey, this research examined the leadership roles held by Chinese Canadian librarians and their perceptions of inclusivity of work climate, job satisfaction, and race as a career barrier. Their encounters with racial microaggressions and mentorship experience were also explored. Of the 38 respondents, 79% (n=30) were in non-management positions. 82% (n=31) felt very satisfied or satisfied with their jobs; however, their work climate was not found to be inclusive to all respondents. 87% (n=33) indicated that race was a barrier to their career. Fisher’s exact tests were run to compare the management group and non-management group. The results showed that those in management positions were less satisfied with their jobs and less likely to feel free to express their views openly. They experienced various forms of racial microaggressions. Nearly half of the respondents sought mentoring support and two-thirds of them found mentorship extremely helpful or very helpful. To increase representation in librarianship, library school students and first-generation immigrants of Chinese descent need to be inspired to enter librarianship and reach higher professional goals. Chinese librarians would benefit from leadership programs tailored to minority librarians in Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.009 |
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".