From Keep and Destroy to Remember and Forget: Dimensions of Accountability Value
Bibliographic record
Abstract
are to be congratulated for an excellent and timely collection of fourteen articles, dealing primarily with accountability as it concerns the public record and its legal and evidential values.Accountability seems to be on every archivist's mind these days; accountability has even claimed stage presence as the theme of archival conferences, such as the meeting of the Association of Canadian Archivists in Montreal in 2004.The subject of accountability in this volume is shaped predominantly by the scandals of the late twentieth century which resulted from exposing malfeasance concerning the public record -involving state secrecy and records closure, inaccessibility to records, ineffective record-keeping procedures and systems, erroneous or questionable records, the failure to create records, or unauthorized or premature records destruction.The book's thesis is that accountability for record-keeping, aided by information legislation, supports the public good.This interpretation of accountability and records comes on the heels of initiatives during the 1980s and 1990s to promulgate access to information (or freedom of information) legislation.Riding on the wave of the citizen's legislated right to know, the theme of accountability was appropriated by records managers and archivists.Information professionals hitched their advocacy for responsible record-keeping and accurate records to this evidential notion of accountability.The emphasis on legal accountability was well fed by repeated revelations of scandalous or questionable record-keeping practices of elected individuals or public institutions, many of which are recounted in this volume.Overall, the theme of accountability for record-keeping as established by legislation permeates this book, including those articles not explicitly telling an access-to-information story.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".