MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389273494 · doi:10.33137/ijidi.v7i3/4.41252

Librarians as Chief Diversity Officers in American Universities: A Clinical Librarian’s Experience

2023· article· en· W4389273494 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Wanda Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Information Diversity & Inclusion (IJIDI) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsOfficerDiversity (politics)Inclusion (mineral)Health careEquity (law)Public relationsMedical educationPolitical scienceLibrary scienceManagementSociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article concerns a clinical librarian's work as a chief diversity officer to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in healthcare and medical education at an American university. The need for healthcare professionals to have access to resources that can assist them with providing equitable care to all patients grows in tandem with the increasing significance of DEI in healthcare. These resources can only be provided by medical librarians. Medical librarians are uniquely positioned to provide these resources. From a unique perspective, a librarian serving as chief diversity officer for a multi-campus medical school in the United States can help ensure that these resources are culturally responsive and appropriate for diverse patient populations. This article discusses the benefits of appointing a clinical librarian as a chief diversity officer (CDO), promoting and increasing awareness of DEI issues through library resources, and the potential for creating more inclusive healthcare information.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0350.009
Scholarly communication0.0140.009
Open science0.0030.014
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Information Diversity & Inclusion (IJIDI)Same topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207