The Role of the Practitioner in Curating <scp>LGBTQIA</scp>+ Safe Spaces in Libraries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The LGBTQIA+ community has come under increasing hostility in the North America through policy and challenges to library holdings and funding. These challenges to professional jurisdiction have prompted renewed scrutiny of the library‐as‐institution's responsibility toward society and the LGBTQIA+ community specifically. Safe spaces for this community remains a nebulous and contested concept. This paper reports preliminary findings of conceptualizations of LGBTQIA+ safe spaces in scholarly and practitioner literature in library and information science. Undertaking a critical literature review, this work outlines conceptualizations of the librarian's role in cultivating safe spaces and contrasts the theme of safe spaces as consisting of in‐group safe spaces. This paper collocates discussions of sociocultural contexts informing the ideas within literature alongside critical appraisals of and tensions with lived experience of queer folks. Surfaced is the gap between the two bodies of knowledge and conceptual and practice‐oriented approaches to reduce this gap.
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 | 0.057 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".