Belonging and Uniqueness as Essential Elements for Inclusive Workplaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite efforts spanning two decades, the LIS field struggles to diversify its workforce. This literature review examines research focussed on the ways belonging and uniqueness work together to create genuinely inclusive workplaces. The review attempts to answer the question, “From the perspective of people working in libraries in Canada, how have efforts to create diverse and inclusive library workplaces affected their sense of belonging and uniqueness?”. The question is one way to translate the lived experience of people working in Canadian libraries into an evaluative measure of organizational diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) work, provided it is positioned within a foundational understanding of the relationship between DEI, belonging and uniqueness. Optimal Distinctiveness Theory (ODT) forms the foundation for much of the research and is identified as a key element of inclusivity. Models of belonging and uniqueness research are included as well as a discussion of the gaps in and future directions for research in the LIS field.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".