A Bibliometric Analysis of Research by Canadian Library and Information Science Academics and Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using data from the Canadian Publications in Library and Information Science Database, this study maps the scholarly contributions of Canadian LIS scholars and academic librarians to the field of LIS and examines whether Canadian LIS research is characterized by silos. This paper examines the similarities and differences in publications, impact, topics, and publication venues between academic librarians and scholars in Canada, as well as the extent to which academics and practitioners engage in research collaborations or reference each other’s work. While there is some overlap in research topics and publication venues between LIS academics and academic librarians, the two groups appear to act as distinct research communities with distinct topical foci and publishing habits. The two groups also do not appear to engage with each other strongly, either through collaboration or citing each other’s work. Une analyse bibliométrique de la recherche par les chercheurs et praticiens canadiens en bibliothéconomie et sciences de l'information RésuméEn exploitant les données de la base de données des Publications canadiennes en bibliothéconomie et sciences de l'information, cette étude présente les contributions des chercheurs et des bibliothécaires universitaires canadiens au domaine de la BSI et examine si la recherche canadienne en BSI est caractérisée par le cloisonnement. Cet article examine les ressemblances et les différences dans les publications, l'impact, les sujets et les lieux de publication entre les bibliothécaires universitaires et les chercheurs au Canada, ainsi que la portée dans laquelle les chercheurs et les praticiens s'engagent dans des collaborations de recherche ou se réfèrent mutuellement dans leurs travaux. Bien qu'il y ait un certain chevauchement des sujets de recherche et des lieux de publication entre les chercheurs en BSI et les bibliothécaires universitaires, les deux groupes semblent agir en tant que communautés de recherche distinctes avec des habitudes de publication et des sujets d'intérêt distincts. Les deux groupes ne semblent pas s'engager l'un envers l'autre, que ce soit en collaborant ou en citant leurs travaux respectifs. Mots-clésBibliothéconomie et science de l'information; bibliothécaires universitaires; faculté de BSI; universités canadiennes; communication savante; édition savante; bibliométrie; collaboration
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 | 0.014 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.194 | 0.394 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".