"Out, Damned Spot!" The Staining of the Proclamation of the Constitution Act, 1982
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article est un compte-rendu de ce qui s'est passé quand un vandale a irrémédiablement endommagé une copie originale de la Proclamation de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 lorsqu'on la lui montrait aux Archives publiques du Canada.L'auteur de ce texte, qui fut la victime de cet acte malicieux, retrace les événements en ordre chronologique, puis il montre comment le document a été créé et dans quel but, comment il a été taché, quelles étapes ont été entreprises pour le restaurer et sa valeur.Suite à ce désastre, les Archives publiques ont réévalué leurs procédures pour manipuler des documents prestigieux dans le but de mieux les protéger du danger.Elles ont aussi eu à affronter une importante question éthique : jusqu'à quel point les techniciens de la conservation devraient-ils restaurer un document sans heurter son authenticité et son intégrité?ABSTRACT This article is an account of what happened when a vandal irreparably damaged an original copy of the Proclamation of the Constitution Act, 1982 at the (then) Public Archives of Canada while it was being shown to him.The writer of this piece, who was the victim of this malicious act, traces events in chronological order and shows how the document was created, its purpose, how it was stained, steps taken to restore it, and its value.As a result of the disaster, the Public Archives reevaluated procedures for handling prestigious documents in order to better protect them from harm.It also had to deal with an important ethical question -to what extent should conservators go to restore a document without affecting its authenticity and integrity?
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".