Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a reflective essay on ideas that animate archival appraisal in democratic societies. The author examines some recent strains in thinking about appraisal and some ideas about the basic concepts of democratic governance in preparation for a discussion of the goal of appraisal in democratic societies and the difficulties in the way of achieving that goal. On the one hand, he argues that appraisal serves the goal of retrospective understanding of the actions of government as one of the means of fostering enlightened understanding in a democratic polis. On the other, he advances the view that appraisal must attend to the need that pluralistic democratic societies have to foster the recognition and identity of cultural communities in their midst. He concludes that archivists must continue to concern themselves with the integrity of the material they select while serving this dual goal of appraisal in democratic societies. RÉSUMÉCet article fournit une réflexion sur les idées qui sous-tendent l'évaluation archivistique dans les sociétés démocratiques. L'auteur examine quelques courants de pensée récents relatifs à l'évaluation et aux concepts de base de la gouvernance démocratique, afin de lancer une discussion sur les buts de l'évaluation dans les sociétés démocratiques et sur les difficultés d'atteindre ces buts. D'un côté, il fait valoir que l'évaluation sert à comprendre rétrospectivement les actions des gouvernements, ce qui constitue un des moyens de promouvoir la connaissance éclairée dans la cité démocratique. De l'autre, il avance que l'évaluation doit satisfaire le besoin de reconnaissance et d'identité des communautés culturelles au sein des sociétés démocratiques pluralistes. L'auteur conclut que les archivistes doivent continuer de se préoccuper de l'intégrité du matériel qu'ils sélectionnent, tout en servant cette double finalité de l'évaluation dans les sociétés démocratiques.
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 | 0.055 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".