MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7047958628

From Intent to Action: Reconciliation and Inclusion in Three Canadian Academic Libraries

2025· article· en· W7047958628 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePurdue e-Pubs (Purdue University System) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Subatomic Physics Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)OperationalizationIndigenousSituatedCommissionWork (physics)Promotion (chess)Institution
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A sense of belonging and inclusion creates conditions for individuals and organizations to thrive. Many Canadian university libraries have been initiating actions which advance reconciliation with Indigenous communities in Canada, and to support equity, diversity, inclusion and belonging. Efforts to operationalize reconciliation and inclusion share important qualities yet require distinctive approaches due to historic and contemporary factors. Reconciliation in Canada must recognize the significance and centrality of the land to Indigenous communities. While inclusion strives to more broadly create conditions in which individuals may thrive, with a focus on those from groups who have historically faced systemic barriers. For both reconciliation and inclusion, progress means creating a greater sense of belonging in libraries for both library staff and library users. As organizations, how do we go about making these cultural changes in a sustained and sustainable manner? In this session, three university libraries will briefly share their approaches in “operationalizing” culture change. In each case, organizational practices, structures and strategies will reflect a particular cultural landscape, institutional priorities, and regional history, but situated within an overall Canadian context, and precipitated by specific catalyzing events, such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, instances of anti-black racism, among others. Despite differences, a sense of urgency and momentum have driven work in each of the institutions, yet also increasingly observed are moments of fatigue, despair, apathy, and inertia. The short presentations will be followed by table discussions to share ideas and reflect on how we can support each other in this work.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.230 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePurdue e-Pubs (Purdue University System)Same topicAtomic and Subatomic Physics ResearchFrench-language works237,207