Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enduring stereotypes and contemporary discourse surrounding librarianship as a profession may influence students’ decisions to use the library and to consider librarianship as a viable career path. This pilot study explores undergraduate students’ perceptions of librarians using a drawing activity. Participants were asked to draw a librarian and to provide a description of their drawing using the draw-and-tell or draw-and-write technique. They were also asked to complete a brief survey with questions focused on participant demographics and library use. Study findings may inform recruitment, marketing, and outreach efforts. A quoi ressemble un·e bibliothécaire? Comprendre les perceptions des étudiant·e·s de premier cycle sur les bibliothécaires RésuméLes stéréotypes persistants et les discours contemporains entourant la profession de bibliothécaire influencent les décisions des étudiant·e·s pour utiliser la bibliothèque et pour considérer les postes de bibliothécaire comme un chemin de carrière durable. Cette étude pilote explore les perceptions des étudiant·e·s de premier cycle sur les bibliothécaires en utilisant une activité de dessin. On a demandé aux participant·e·s de dessiner un·e bibliothécaire et de fournir une description de leur dessin en utilisant la technique du dessiner-raconter et dessiner-écrire. On leur a également demandé de compléter une brève enquête avec des questions portant sur les données démographiques des participant·e·s et leur utilisation de la bibliothèque. Les résultats de l’étude peuvent informer sur les efforts de recrutement, de commercialisation et de sensibilisation.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.009 |
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".