MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1484930082

The Death of the Fonds and the Resurrection of Provenance: Archival Context in Space and Time

2002· article· en· W1484930082 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivaria · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Minnesota
KeywordsProvenanceContext (archaeology)HistorySpace (punctuation)ArchaeologyPhilosophyBiologyPaleontologyLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alors que les concepts de fonds, respect des fonds et provenance furent d'abord utiliss au Canada afin de contrebalancer les approches ad hoc de la classification et de la description, la ralit intellectuelle de la provenance et la ralit physique des documents sont devenues tellement entrelaces que la distinction essentielle entre ceux-ci et leur crateur a t perdue.Les Rgles pour la description des documents d'archives, par exemple, prescrivent une approche pour le fonds qui ne permet pas la description d'ensembles virtuels de documents, accumuls divers moments du temps et disperss en divers lieux.Afin de rvaluer le concept de provenance, l'auteure examine l'utilisation de ce terme dans les domaines de l'archologie et de la musologie.En adaptant ces dfinitions au contexte de l'archivistique, elle soutient que les archivistes devraient dcrire les documents qui subsistent, crire l'histoire de leur crateur et de l'ensemble des documents crs et, enfin, dcrire comment les documents ont t acquis par leur institution.Les archivistes devraient en fait tendre les lments existants des RDDA pour la source immdiate d'acquisition et l' historique de la conservation et mettre l'accent sur une nouvelle faon de voir qui ne serait pas celle du respect des fonds mais du respect de la provenance, comprenant l'histoire du crateur, l'histoire des documents et l'historique de la conservation.La description des documents d'archives devrait comprendre tous ces lments, ce qui permettrait aux archivistes de replacer les documents dans le contexte le plus large possible et, dans le mme temps, de devenir plus responsables pour leurs dcisions et plus transparents dans la gestion des documents dont ils ont la garde.Les archivistes doivent abandonner le concept de fonds parce que cette ide caractrise les documents comme ils ne pourront jamais tre, en ignorant la ralit de leur existence dans le temps et l'espace.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.160 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it