Where's Our Space? BIPOC in Library and Information Studies and social media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research investigates how BIPOC students and alumni from graduate level LIS programs in Canada understand their relationship to their programs, work, information, communication and social media. Part of the work reflects on the barriers to connection that are presented by being minorities in the field and seeks to understand how BIPOC understand their use of social media, how their use of social media has influenced their perspective on the profession, and how they intend to continue to participate in the profession of librarianship and information management. Through conducting 11 in-depth interviews accompanied with a qualitative analysis, it was revealed how BIPOC LIS students and alumni use digital communication methods outside of the formal structure of their programs or workplaces to gain and share information and to build community with other BIPOC in the library community and beyond. This research does not focus primarily on the structural failings within LIS for BIPOC but rather what BIPOC LIS students and alumni view as barriers to them and how they respond to these barriers. Utilizing a digital humanist and critical librarianship lens, this research is about relationships and connections: to the self, to others you do or do not identify with, and to the structures we all work within (technologically, theoretically and practically).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".