Protecting Dispersed Collections: A Framework for Managing the at-Risk Heritage Assets of Catholic Religious Institutes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The aim of this project was to gather information on the archive management practices for all religious institutes of England and Wales and to propose viable solutions for their long-term preservation, ensuring their continuity beyond the lifespan of each institute.As a result of the decline in vocations, many religious institutes are disbanding with the resulting existential threat to their significant archive collections. These collections are not only important to the religious institutes themselves, allowing their charism and identity to remain in perpetuity, but are also invaluable to historians of education, medicine, migration and exile, and other topics now considered secular.Solutions that have been attempted in the UK have been limited in scope, although there are examples of centralised repositories in Europe, the United States and Canada specialising in storing the archives of religious institutes. Of particular importance in this context are the Heritage Centre for Monastic Life in St. Agatha, Nijmegen, and the KADOC Documentation and Research Centre on Religion, Culture and Society in Leuven, whose repositories were visited as part of this project. There have also been attempts in the UK, Ireland and elsewhere to collect information on collection management practices in the form of surveys and inspections.Building upon this research, a survey was sent to all religious institutes in England and Wales to collect information on their collection management practices and future plans for the storage of their archive.As a result of this survey, the main findings and recommendations include: the need to convene a ‘Repository Working Group’ involving representatives from religious institutes, Catholic stakeholders, and archives associations to discuss the feasibility of establishing repositories, including commissioning a comprehensive feasibility study and cost analysis to determine viability; collaboration with international groups facing similar challenges; raising awareness about archive preservation amongst religious institutes; encouraging basic listings of collections; providing archival training opportunities, and advocating for funding and access to archives.The report also stresses that religious institutes are not alone in facing the challenges of at-risk and dispersed records. Indeed, the recommendations of this report will be relevant to many institutions and organisations storing archives and so have broader implications for the archives sector as a whole.
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».