Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article passe en revue les concepts de préservation, de conservation et d'écologie, en vue d'établir le lien entre la théorie et la pratique archivistiques, ainsi que la philosophie et la protection environnementales, comme des domaines qui sont intellectuellement liés et non seulement analogues.En dépassant la métaphore de l'or ganique qui est omniprésente dans la littérature professionnelle, l'auteur invite les archivistes à examiner les idées et les applications parallèles tant au niveau des archives que de l'écologie qui peuvent agir sur le processus de prise de décision.Il encourage de plus les archivistes à s'éloigner du positivisme qui a souvent guidé leurs activités, pour se diriger plutôt vers un paradigme plus pluraliste tel qu'il se présente dans les sciences biologiques et physiques.Le résultat est une connaissance fonda mentale de l'intersection théorique entre archives et écologie, en lien avec des modèles qui peuvent mener vers des applications pratiques dans l'évaluation et l'accès des archives.ABSTRACT This article reviews the concepts of preservation, conservation, and ecol ogy in order to establish archival theory and practice, and environmental philosophy and protection as intellectually related domains, not merely analogous subjects.Moving beyond the organic metaphor peppered throughout the professional literature, it challenges archivists to look more widely at the parallel ideas and applications in archives and ecology that can influence and inform their decision-making process, and encourages archivists to move further away from the positivism that has directed much of their activities toward a more pluralistic paradigm evident in the biological and physical sciences.The outcome is a fundamental understanding of the theoretical intersection of archives and ecology coupled with models that can guide practical applications in appraisal and access for archives.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".