Who Thinks What About Research? Academic Librarian Research According to Librarians, Faculty, and Collective Agreements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research is an important component of academic librarianship. Often required for promotion and tenure, research is integral to the practice of evidence-based librarianship. This session will review a study of the perceptions of librarian research according to librarians and non-librarian faculty, as well as the provisions for librarian research in collective agreements at universities across Canada. Surveys and semi-structured interviews were used to solicit insights from participants on the nature of librarian research, the ability of librarians to conduct research, and the awareness and perceived value of that research. Librarian research was rated as critical and valuable, though awareness of librarian research was found to be relatively low among non-librarian faculty. When this awareness was increased, interdisciplinary communication, trust, and engagement with faculty improved. Formalized support for research was often lacking, even at institutions that require research of their librarians.
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 | 0.075 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".