Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is ssentially the text of a speech given by National Archivist of Canada Ian E. Wilson in May 2000 to the Riley Seminar on the Destruction of Records and Proposed Access Act Amendments. As Richard Brown explains in the foreword, the article draws its inspiration from an article by former Dominion Archivist W. Kaye Lamb, entitled “The Fine Art of Destruction.” Wilson focuses on the management of information as a corporate resource and asset of the government and indicates that the National Archives of Canada can contribute to the development of information industry standards with government-wide application while pursuing its own interests to preserve records with archival and historic importance. RÉSUMÉ Cet article est essentiellement le texte d’un discours prononcé par l’Archiviste national du Canada, M. Ian E. Wilson, au début de l’an 2000, lors du Séminaire Riley qui portait sur la destruction des documents et des amendements projetés à la Loisur l’accès. Comme l’explique Richard Brown en présentation, l’article s’inspire d’untexte publié par l’ex-archiviste fédéral W. Kaye Lamb et intitulé “The Fine Art of Destruction.” M. Wilson met l’accent sur la gestion de l’information comme une ressource corporative et un actif pour le gouvernement; il signale que les Archives nationales du Canada peuvent à la fois contribuer au développement de normes pour l’industrie de l’information, lesquelles peuvent s’appliquer à l’ensemble du gouvernement, tout en pour suivant leurs propres intérêts quant à la préservation des documents ayant une valeur archivistique et historique.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".