Scholarly and professional communication in archives: archival traditions and languages
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.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The differences between archival traditions have hindered communication between archival practitioners and scholars from different countries and traditions and have impacted on the success of international recordkeeping projects.Some of the concepts that underpin the current archival literature in English are difficult to translate, one of the reasons being that many other languages do not have a word for the concept of 'records'.Even within the Anglophone professional community, concepts and terms differ (likewise in the French-, German-and Spanish-speaking world and other language spheres).Records Continuum concepts, which have influenced the development of the international Records Management standard ISO 15489, are generally misunderstood outside of Australia.On the other hand, very little literature is available in English about archival theories and practices in non-Anglophone countries.More research is needed on the impact of language and culture on recordkeeping traditions and practices.In this special issue of Archives & Manuscripts, we are seeking to develop our knowledge base by bringing together authors that represent different archival traditions and practices.This issue covers important aspects of the archival traditions in France, Italy, Slovenia, Finland, Iceland, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Japan, and through the discussion of translations of the Universal Declaration on Archives, it brings insights from as far afield as the Dutch Caribbean Islands, the Philippines, China, Iran, Israel and the Arab world.In addition to these, contributions from Germany, Spain, Denmark and Canada were planned for this issue.However, due to increased workloads in the COVID-19 pandemic, the contributors were not able to submit their pieces.From the very first relationships archivists endeavoured across political and cultural borders, coping with differences between archival traditions has been a major challenge.One of the schemes to facilitate communication between archival practitioners and scholars from different countries and traditions was (and still is) the creation of glossaries and dictionaries.These tools, more often than not, are also used to standardise terminologies and practices and thereby contribute to further professionalisation.Such standardisation and professionalisation was the ambition of Dutch archivists Muller, Feith and Fruin who composed the Manual for the arrangement and description of archives (1898). 1 Not only in chapter 6 'on the conventional use of certain terms and signs', but throughout the book the authors strived to standardisation and uniformity in the arrangement and description of archives.Shortly after the publication of the Manual the first translation appeared: a German edition translated by Hans Kaiser, and closely supervised by the Dutch trio.The translation into another language and into another archival tradition led to many, especially terminological questions.
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 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 découle