The Last Dance of the Phoenix or The De-Discovery of the Archival Fonds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Probably even more in Europe than in the rest of the world the principle of provenance caused confusion and heavy debates among archivists. Its roots seem to be in the respect des fonds, expressed in France in 1841, but as a matter of fact are much older and initially lacked any kind of theoretical foundation. The diversity in administrative practice in various European traditions did not contribute to a real consensus, either about what a fonds is, or whether the original order should be preserved or restored. In those traditions where strong registry systems exist (or existed) archivists tend to respect the original order, whereas in other traditions archivists may find it cumbersome. But even the fonds as an entity to respect is challenged, since often administrative changes in the originating administration blurred its boundaries. Why do archivists all over the world try to respect a thing or a situation that is so problematic? What is the reason that again and again archival thinkers try to solve the puzzle caused by the unruliness of the material with which they work? Why do they try to get all situations to fit into their paradigm? How is it the Phoenix can be reborn from any fire that it burns? In a re-reading of existing literature, European, North American, and Australian we may discover new patterns. RÉSUMÉLe principe de provenance, probablement plus encore en Europe que dans le reste du monde, entraîne de la confusion et des débats intenses entre archivistes. Les racines de ce principe semblent être dans le respect des fonds, exprimé en France en 1841, mais elles remontent en fait encore plus loin et manquent à l'origine de tout fondement théorique. La diversité des pratiques administratives dans les traditions européennes n'a pas contribué à un réel consensus, tant pour la définition du fonds, que pour la question de savoir si l'ordre primitif des documents doit être préservé ou restoré. Dans les pays où la tradition du registre central existe, les archivistes ont tendance à respecter l'ordre original alors qu'ailleurs, les archivistes le trouve encombrant. Mais même le fonds comme entité à respecter est remis en cause, puisque les changements administratifs brouillent souvent ses limites. Pourquoi les archivistes à travers le monde tentent-ils de respecter un concept ou une situation qui pose tant de problèmes? Pourquoi les penseurs dans le domaine de l'archivistique tentent-ils autant comme autant de résoudre le casse-tête causé par l'indiscipline de leurs documents? Pourquoi tentent-ils de faire entrer toutes les situations dans un même paradigme? Pourquoi le Phoenix renaît-il toujours de ses cendres? C'est par une relecture de la littérature existante, tant européenne, nord-américaine qu'australienne, que l'auteur tente de découvrir de nouveaux modèles.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 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".