MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6996782787

Supporting the Academic Library Workforce: Updates from the Canadian Association of Research Libraries

2022· article· en· W6996782787 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePurdue e-Pubs (Purdue University System) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforceDiversity (politics)General partnershipInclusion (mineral)DemographicsWork (physics)Workforce development
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) has invested significant energy over the last 20 years in building workforce capacity across the country’s academic libraries. The global pandemic has given this work a whole new intensity as directors find themselves seeking to fill large numbers of vacancies in a highly competitive market, to encourage more candidates from equity-deserving groups to apply, to prepare both new and long-serving staff members to take on new kinds of work, and to create workplace environments that encourage staff to stay. This paper will update the international community on a number of CARL initiatives that are collectively building the national understanding and approach to library workforce capacity. Most notably, the paper will introduce the new Competencies for Librarians in Canadian Research Libraries (September 2020) which aims to help with both personal and organizational goal setting, recruitment and professional development. The paper will also describe the national Diversity and Inclusion Survey conducted in partnership with the Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion (CCDI) to better understand both the demographics of the CARL workforce and how individuals from various equity-deserving groups experience that workplace. The paper will document the dramatic increase in the number and engagement in professional learning and development opportunities for staff in Canadian research libraries, from webinars and symposiums to community calls and cross-Canada coffee chats. Finally, the paper will demonstrate the use of a logic model as envisioned by CARL’s Library Impact Framework Working Group, as a strategy for an individual library to visualize the impact of its various efforts on welcoming and retaining new staff.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePurdue e-Pubs (Purdue University System)Same topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207