Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within scholarly and professional LIS literature, researchers and practitioners have applied the language, theory, and practices of stage performance to the context of academic library instruction. Recognizing the power of discourse in shaping professional norms and values, I wonder: How might the widespread presence of performance-based approaches to library instruction impact assumptions and expectations of those librarians who provide it? To better identify, interrogate, and imagine the implications of this discourse, this article first provides a review of the scholarship that has contributed to and resisted the phenomenon of library-instruction-as-performance, drawing upon the work of researchers who have engaged with theatrical, dramatic, or comedic approaches to library instruction. Using content analysis and close reading, I then analyze recent academic library conference programs to further understand how this thinking has been brought to life through professional development opportunities. Upon discovering a cluster of emotional themes within these texts, I follow how the discourse of performance in library instruction intersects with the concept of emotional labour in libraries, exploring how performance-based approaches can both demand emotional labour from and provide emotional reprieve to instruction librarians. In doing so, I focus on the interplay of professional discourse in library instruction and behavioural expectations of librarians—including their emotional expressions—to better understand how these phenomena co-exist and reinforce one another.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".