“Always Follow the Money”: A Call to Investigate Financial Records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article surveys the literature on financial records and finds that very little has been written on the subject. Noting that as much as twenty years ago the Association of Canadian Archivists called for course content that would increase archivists’ awareness of these records, the author calls for research into financial records and the records of financial institutions. The article describes how the newly formed UBC Centre for the Investigation of Financial Electronic Records (CiFER) aims to conduct research on financial records and the records of financial institutions. The article argues that new studies on financial records and the records of financial institutions will both better prepare archivists to preserve these types of records and provide opportunities to test and explore archival theory, as well as provide greater insight into the factors leading to economic stability and the stability of financial institutions, showing how archival studies can make practical and very relevant contributions to society. The article discusses a number of CiFER’s research initiatives and how these will contribute to filling knowledge gaps and testing theory. The paper concludes with an invitation to interested archivists to become involved in the CiFER research network. RÉSUMÉ Cet article fait un survol de la littérature sur les documents financiers et conclut qu’on a très peu écrit à ce sujet. Remarquant qu’il y a au moins vingt ans l’Association of Canadian Archivists recommandait que des cours soient donnés aux archivistes pour les sensibiliser à ce genre de documents, l’auteure réclame que de la recherche soit faite sur les documents financiers et les documents d’institutions financières. L’article décrit comment le nouveau UBC Centre for the Investigation of Financial Electronic Records (CiFER) vise à mener de la recherche sur les documents financiers et les documents d’institutions financières. L’article soutient que de nouvelles études sur ce genre de documents permettront aux archivistes de mieux les préserver, tout en favorisant la mise en pratique de la théorie archivistique. De plus, ces études offriront aux archivistes une meilleure compréhension des facteurs qui contribuent à la stabilité économique et à la stabilité des institutions financières, ce qui montrera comment les études en archivistique peuvent contribuer de façon pratique et pertinente au développement de la société. L’article présente un nombre de projets de recherche du CiFER et montre comment ceux-ci contribueront à notre connaissance, tout en mettant à l’épreuve la théorie. L’article termine en invitant les archivistes intéressés à participer au réseau de recherche du CiFER.
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 | 0.082 | 0.197 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.044 | 0.071 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
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".