Bibliographic record
Abstract
Archives and archival activity, at least at the national level in Canada, have frequently been studied by official bodies.There were early investigative commissions into the state of records and archives in 1897, and 1912-14, discus-sion around draft parliamentary bills in the 1920s and 1930s, and substantial passages on archives in the very influential report of the (Massey) Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters, and Sciences in 1951.In the brief quarter century of the ACA's existence, there has been the "Symons Report" on Canadian Studies (1976) that devoted a chapter to archives as the very foundation of all Canadian studies; the "Wilson Report" on Canadian archives for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (1980) that investigated the state of archives in the nation and articulated the need for a networked, co-operative system for Canadian archives; and the "Applebaum-Hébert Report" on Canadian cultural policy (1983) that reinforced the conclusions of the Wilson Report for the federal and provincial ministers of culture, resulting eventually in the creation of the Canadian Council of Archives and funding for the Canadian Archival System.And this recounting does not include various regional and provincial studies in the same period, discussions around the National Archives of Canada Act, or subsequent investigation of Canadian studies by David Cameron. 1 The latest such report was written by John English in 1999 on the future 1 T.H.
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 | 0.026 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.025 |
| 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".