“Diversity is a Fact, but Inclusion is a Choice”: Exploratory Open-Ended Qualitative Perspectives of Public Library Staff about the Racial Climate in the Internal Workplace of the American South
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores open-ended qualitative feedback collected through an online survey of public library staff (e.g., managers/directors, librarians, volunteers, etc.) in the American South about the racial climate in their internal workplace. Theory of change is the conceptual principle driving this research study that calls for developing relevant solutions stemming from identifying a needed social change based on points of view of stakeholders embedded in the phenomena under study. The contextual background is the reality of racism that is THE PROBLEM in the United States and the world over. The survey questions were focused on four response categories: workplace inclusion and culture, staffing and professional development, workplace policies and procedures, and personal experiences. This research study briefly provides a listing of thematic results for each response category analyzed via application of grounded theory and open, selective, and axial coding. Implications to operationalize civic engagement for racial justice are briefly identified based on the data collected
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".