Bibliographic record
Abstract
Library workers with disabilities remain underrepresented within libraries. This research investigates this problem by turning its gaze towards library managers who provide accommodations in the workplace to their staff. Preliminary findings indicate a strong interest in providing accommodation in the interview process and in the workplace, but a tendency not to signal that openness. Ideas for better signalling desire and willingness to accommodate for disability are recommended. Inverser le regard: la perception et l'expérience des gestionnaires des bibliothèques publiques de l’Ontario en matière d'aménagement pour les personnes handicapées RésuméLes employés des bibliothèques ayant un handicap restent sous-représentés dans les bibliothèques. Cette recherche étudie ce problème en s'intéressant aux gestionnaires de bibliothèques qui offrent des aménagements adaptés sur le lieu de travail à leur personnel. Les résultats préliminaires indiquent un intérêt marqué pour la mise en place d'aménagement adapté durant le processus d'entretien et sur le lieu de travail, mais une tendance à ne pas signaler cette ouverture. Des idées pour mieux signaler le désir et la volonté de mettre en place des aménagements adaptés sont recommandées. Mots-clésBibliothèques publiques; aménagement adapté; handicap
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".