COX (ed.), Lester J. Cappon and the Relationship of History, Archives, and Scholarship in the Golden Age of Archival Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Richard Cox has successfully undertaken an important task in collecting, selecting, and editing written works by Lester J. Cappon.This project is of course very different from the collections of essays written to honour Canadian archival luminaries.In these collections, contemporary commentators have summarized, synthesized, situated, and re-sited the careers, written works, and influences of such remarkable associates as Hugh Taylor and Kent Haworth. 1 As Taylor did in a later work, 2 Lester Cappon appears to us alone on stage and we work through his evolving theories from essay to essay.Cappon will be an unfamiliar name to most Canadians.Cox allows that Cappon is not now well known in the United States either, even though he was enormously influential to the development of the archival system in that country.3 Lester Cappon (1900Cappon ( -1981) ) was an archivist, historian, and documentary editor -sometimes all three at once.Richard Cox has provided an excellent introduction that retraces Cappon's career and situates him within a larger set of events concurrent with the development of the archival profession in the United States.4 He then lets Cappon's articles and essays stand by themselves with no intrusive 1
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.007 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".