MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1501897037

Across the Great Divide: Archival Discourse and the (Re)presentations of the Past in Late-Modern Society

2002· article· en· W1501897037 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bernadine Dodge

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivaria · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPostmodernismVariety (cybernetics)CyberspaceRegretMediationAestheticsSociologyMedia studiesHistoryLiteratureSocial scienceThe InternetArtComputer scienceWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the implications for archival discourse in a late-modern world of technoculture featuring the digital re-mediation of documents, texts and images. Issues such as provenance, authority, memory and evidence are affected in a variety of ways once documents and photographs are detached from their original settings and enter cyberspace. Many theorists of the postmodern decry the effects of speed and time distortions associated with the age of the machine. Many also regret the passing of the autonomous, grounded individual characterized by an inherently stable self. This article suggests that there may be advantages to loosening some of the ties that bind us to traditional ways of looking at archival practices in late-modern society. RÉSUMÉCet article examine les implications, pour le discours archivistique dans notre monde de ce début du XXIe siècle, de la technoculture et de la reformulation numérique des documents, des textes et des images. Une fois ces objets détachés de leur contexte original et projetés dans le cyberespace, des questions comme la provenance, l'autorité, la mémoire et la preuve sont affectées de diverses façons. Plusieurs théoriciens du post-modernisme déplorent les effets de la distorsion du temps et de la vitesse associés à l'âge de la machine. Plusieurs regrettent aussi la fin de l'individu autonome et enraciné, caractérisé par un soi immanent et stable. L'auteure de cet article propose qu'un relâchement des liens qui nous unissent aux façons traditionnelles de voir les pratiques archivistiques peut comporter des avantages.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0330.084
Scholarly communication0.0300.033
Open science0.0020.020
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchivariaSame topicHermeneutics and Narrative IdentityFrench-language works237,207