MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1495834745 · doi:10.3233/wdl-120061

Project Naming: what makes it a “good digital collection”?

2010· article· en· W1495834745 on OpenAlex
Cobi Falconer

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.

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

VenueWorld Digital Libraries - An international journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheme (computing)Library scienceGovernment (linguistics)National archivesSyllabusHistorySociologyVisual artsPolitical scienceWorld Wide WebComputer scienceLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following is an assessment of Project Naming, which is both a digital collection (workin-progress) and a digital project through Library and Archives Canada (LAC). I shall demonstrate how this collection/project exemplifies the highlevel principles outlined in A Framework for Guidance for Building Good Digital Collections (2006) by the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) in relation to the digital collection development and selection policies theme outlined in our class syllabus. In brief, Project Naming involves digitizing photographs of the Inuit pre-mid-20th century, which were originally snapped by several non-Inuit professional photographers and various federal government-related personnel such as the National Film Board of Canada, Department of National Health and Welfare, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and Department of Indian and Northern Affairs (LAC Photo collections). Many of the Inuits portrayed in the photographs were never personally identified—for example, ‘Eskimo playing drum’ taken at ‘Spence Bay’ has been revised through Project Naming to ‘Iharrataittuq Itirujuk, the father of Nilaulaaq Aglukkaq in Taloyoak (formerly Spence Bay), Nunavut’ (LAC Richard Harrington collection: Eskimo playing drum). Before phase-I of the project (2001–2004), these photographs sat quietly in the former National Archives of Canada (now LAC). Several of these photographs were scanned and transferred to CD-ROMs. The CD-ROMs were to be taken up north by Inuit youth to be viewed on laptops by their elders. (LAC Voices from Nunavut: Project Naming: Always on our minds). The collections principles are part of the Framework of Guidance for Building Good Digital Collections (2004), which is a guide rather than a standard or best practice for digital projects/collections to follow especially when applying for funding from granting organizations like the IMLS (Cole 2002). Although it appears that Project Naming has not received funding from the IMLS or the NSF, it is interesting to see how this digital collection/project might have been influenced by these principles (via LAC), which may have contributed to some of the project’s success. In this vein, Project Naming follows collections principle number one in that there is an agreed upon collection development policy created by LAC, which ‘is based on the broad collecting mandate established by the Library and Archives of Canada Act’ (LAC -

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.

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 categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0400.032
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.208 · 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