Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper demonstrates the importance of historicizing seemingly novel phenomenon as a means of defamiliarizing what is presented as obvious and inevitable. Thus, the popular constitution of the library as community hub and the placement of social workers therein is problematized when read against a parallel history involving the introduction, in the 1960s, of social workers into the library to assist in the delivery of community Information and Referral services (I&R). Starting from the question, if social workers are the solution, what is the problem their employment in public libraries is meant to solve, a literature search of social work and library science databases was conducted followed by a textual analysis of the research revealing competing narratives about professional competencies and legitimacy. The analysis surfaced critical questions regarding the current state of public librarianship and why a return to the reference desk might be a good idea.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".