The value of a communitarian approach to public library board governance: Rejecting neoliberal practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last several years, public library boards in Canada, like mostpublic bodies, have adopted a neoliberal marketization approach to their policy anddecision-making processes. This approach is at odds with traditional professionalpractices of librarianship. This paper focuses on two competing approaches topublic library board governance: neoliberalism and communitarianism. In theassessing of the discourse between these two models, it is contended that neo-liberalism has instilled operational procedures and an organizational culture thatare contrary to a spirit of positive public engagement, a spirit that should be thecornerstone of public library boards. In contrast, communitarianism, by providing aset of guiding principles, makes public library boards more accessible within theircommunities, and can therefore lead to the rediscovery of the public library board’spositive spirit of public engagement. Through a search for praxis, recommendationson how public library board trustees can maintain their dual responsibility ofprofessional ethics of librarianship while remaining an integral part of their localcommunity are proffered
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".