Workers and Libraries – A Question of Class in Public Library Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For what purposes are public libraries established? Who do the founders intend to reach with the activities of the libraries? How does the question of goals of public library work develop over time? These are important questions to analyse but first we have to demarcate. The paper treats public libraries and their forerunners in Sweden. The focus is on class and libraries and especially workers and libraries. Three phases are studied. The first is the founding phase of the modern public libraries in Sweden. What was the opinion about the existing popular libraries at that time and how was the discussion about developing the libraries to modern public libraries related to the question of workers and libraries? The second phase is the establishing of libraries within the labour movement during mainly the first half of the 20th century. What can explain the swift development of these workers ’ libraries and why did they finally get absorbed into the library organisations of the municipalities? The third phase is the last quarter of the 20th century. This period started with a rapid expansion of outreach activities. One of them was books at places of work. The intention of the service was to reach workers, who used the public library in only a limited way. What happened with that service later on? This is analysed in relation to the development in society and especially within the public library sector.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".