Notice bibliographique
Résumé
It might be argued that arrangement and description is something of a poor child in the competition for attention in these pages.Although the journal has published several articles on arrangement and description over the years, this issue is the first one to be wholly devoted to the subject.There have been two special issues on electronic records.Other issues in recent years have paid particular attention to such subjects as the history of records and archives, archives and culture, archives and photography, queer archives, archives and the law, and archives: space and power.The archival function of appraisal, which one suspects is widely regarded (falsely, I think) as more intellectually challenging than the function of identifying and representing archives, has regularly been the subject of articles in recent years.This relative neglect of arrangement and description is unfortunate, for many of the threads of thinking about archives in the digital age and about connecting archival science with wider currents of thought in other disciplines ought to be brought to bear on consideration of arrangement and description, which is what this issue aims to do.We open with Richard Dancy's searching examination of the birth, life, and shortcomings of the Canadian Rules for Archival Description (RAD).He begins with the history of the making of RAD and efforts to reform it, all in the light of international developments.He then judiciously and persuasively presents the case that the existing structure of RAD inhibits making necessary reforms, offers a wide-ranging analysis of where rules are lacking, and canvasses three possible ways to make needed improvements.In his conclusion, he observes that "more than anything else, what is needed now is a period of debate in which the Canadian archival community begins to look critically at its standard.Part of the difficulty RAD2 faced was that it provided answers to questions very few Canadian archivists were asking.RAD is a community standard: it does not need fixing if the community does not perceive anything wrong with it."It is difficult to believe that discerning readers of his article will think there is nothing wrong with RAD, but easy to believe that realizing reform necessitates overcoming some serious hurdles.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».