Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in STEM Academic Librarianship: Perspectives and Practices in Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research explores the perspectives and practices of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) in Canadian Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) academic librarianship. Research data were collected from Canadian STEM librarians through an online survey and one-on-one interviews. Findings indicate that the majority of participants' libraries and institutions have integrated EDI into their strategic plans, policies, or guidelines. These STEM librarians shared their perspectives, experiences, opportunities, and challenges in achieving their EDI goals. Besides providing examples of practices, the research sheds light on potential improvements to encourage STEM academic librarians to effectively integrate EDI into their professional practices. Establishing a supportive organizational culture for EDI is identified as a crucial motivational factor.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| 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 it