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

Raising Money Raises Questions

2010· article· en· W2011441630 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elizabeth Druga

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,014
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
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 enseignants0,047
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,156

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0140,045
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0130,030
Communication savante0,0200,036
Science ouverte0,0030,009
Intégrité de la recherche0,0220,019
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0470,009

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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Information EthicsMême sujetArt History and Market AnalysisTravaux en français237 207