Of Things Said and Unsaid: Power, Archival Silences, and Power in Silence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce texte examine les dynamiques du silence aux archives.Il soutient que le silence peut se définir, au moins en partie, comme la manifestation des actes posés par ceux qui détiennent le pouvoir afin d'empêcher aux marginaux d'avoir accès aux archives.Il affirme que cet enjeu a un impact significatif sur la capacité des groupes marginalisés de constituer leur propre mémoire et leurs propres histoires sociales.Les archivistes et les chercheurs peuvent lire les archives « contre le grain » et ils peuvent commencer à mettre en valeur ces silences et à donner une voix à ceux qu'on a réprimés.Cette activité peut toutefois s'avérer difficile et contentieuse et on ne peut l'aborder à la légère.Cet article examine ensuite comment le silence peut être une méthode favorisée par les groupes marginalisés qui refusent de verser leurs documents aux archives comme un moyen d'exercer leur propre pouvoir sur ceux qui détiennent le pouvoir.ABSTRACT This article examines the dynamics of silence in archives.It argues that silences are, in part, the manifestation of the actions of the powerful in denying the marginal access to archives and that this has a significant impact on the ability of the marginal groups to form social memory and history.Archivists and researchers can read archives "against the grain" and begin to highlight these silences and give voice to the silenced.This, however, may be a difficult and contentious activity and one that should not be entered into lightly.The article then examines how silence can be a method used by the marginalized to deny the archives their records as a way to exercise their power over the powerful."I'm interested for the most part in what's not happening, that area between events that could be called the gap.This gap exists in the blank and void regions or settings that we never look at."Robert Smithson, "What is a Museum?" (1967) 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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".