MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2011441630 · doi:10.3172/jie.19.1.141

Raising Money Raises Questions

2010· article· en· W2011441630 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Information Ethics · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueArt History and Market Analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRaising (metalworking)EconomicsEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Although archives have frequently been associated with treasure troves or viewed as stores of cultural gems, those responsible for maintaining know that their operation and care can cost as much as a king's ransom. Funding archival work has perennially been a difficult issue to address. Recessions exacerbate financial problems, and, as current economic downturn has shown, bring budgetary concerns to forefront. During tough times archives and other cultural institutions have turned to their own collections, deaccessioning and selling valuable items to cover operating costs; such moves, however, often raise public ire and generate negative publicity for institution. Some archives have chosen instead to follow in footsteps of museums and raise funds by mining their holdings for materials that they can license, particularly those dealing in forms of media based on repackaging of existing content (Loe, 2004, p. 58). Although not as controversial as deaccessioning, archives must still contend with a multitude of legal and ethical issues when using items in their collections to generate revenue.Charging Fees or Generating RevenueAs with other predominantly cultural institutions like libraries and museums, archives have traditionally been viewed as nonprofit organizations intended to serve greater good of society and scholarship. Their willingness to share information they hold supported an intellectual barter system in which scholars could use archival materials in their works in return for acknowledging source and depositing a copy of final product. Permissions fees were usually charged only when materials were used in commercial or profit-seeking ventures. Changes in program funding, however, made it necessary for institutions to develop other ways of supporting their normal activities (Browar, Henderson, North, & Wenger, 2002, pp. 124-25). The introduction of fees for services like copying served a double purpose, helping both to recoup cost of such activities and to moderate requests that could be potentially damaging to materials (Blais, 1995, p. 50). Advances in digital media also spurred archives to think of their holdings as potential sources of revenue. Through Corbis Corporation, Bill Gates illustrates how profitable fine art and archival images could be when they digitized and actively marketed (Butler, 1998, p. 65); greater numbers of requests on part of documentary filmmakers and others drawing upon past for their creative works demonstrated that the growing global demand for media content has also increased perceived value of iconic cultural assets like those lining many institutions' shelves (Ivey, 2008, p. 33). Realizing potential of their holdings as well as possibility that commercial companies could exploit their materials if they do not, many archives have decided to implement their own generation programs.Some distinction must be made, however, between types of fees archives generally charge. Gabrielle Blais notes that Canadian National Archives follows government in distinguishing between charging user fees tailored toward the recovery of a fair share of cost of providing goods and services from those who receive a direct benefit from them and implementing new activities which could be undertaken ... with intention of generating revenue and that are not undertaken strictly because of their archival nature (Blais, 1995, p. 50). Simon Fowler elaborates on latter in his essay on funding projects in British record offices:Income generation by archives might be defined as those activities organized by archival staff with aim of raising for benefit of record office.... What unites these ventures is that they more efficiently exploit resources present already, such as staff knowledge or records themselves. Revenue raising activities increasingly provide services which might not exist otherwise (Fowler, 1993, p. …

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,960
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,002
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,055
Tête enseignante GPT0,292
Écart entre enseignants0,237 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle