MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1508999026

The Fine Art of Destruction Revisited

2000· article· en· W1508999026 on OpenAlex
Ian Wilson

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

VenueArchivaria (Association of Canadian Archivists) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchivistDominionGovernment (linguistics)Asset (computer security)Political scienceNational archivesLawPublic administrationHistoryLibrary scienceArchaeologyPhilosophyLinguisticsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article est essentiellement le texte d'un discours prononc par l'Archiviste national du Canada, M. Ian E. Wilson, au dbut de l'an 2000, lors du Sminaire Riley qui portait sur la destruction des documents et des amendements projets la Loi sur l'accs.Comme l'explique Richard Brown en prsentation, l'article s'inspire d'un texte publi par l'ex-archiviste fdral W. Kaye Lamb et intitul "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 la fois contribuer au dveloppement de normes pour l'industrie de l'information, lesquelles peuvent s'appliquer l'ensemble du gouvernement, tout en poursuivant leurs propres intrts quant la prservation 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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.858
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.188 · 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