MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1654237213

From Peruvian Guano to Electronic Records: Canadian E-Discovery and Records Professionals

2010· article· en· W1654237213 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Donald C. Force

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivaria · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDocumentationPolitical scienceElectronic recordsAdministration (probate law)Library scienceHumanitiesLawArtComputer scienceWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The exponential growth of electronic records has led archivists and records managers to develop ever more sophisticated approaches to manage and preserve these records, not only to support an organization’s daily operations but to alleviate the records retrieval burden in the event that the organization encounters litigation. The electronic discovery process has added additional pressure to the responsibilities of records professionals by holding organizations accountable for the documentation they disclose as well as that which they cannot produce. In North America, American court rulings on e-discovery issues have largely overshadowed those in Canada. This article provides a historical perspective of the emergence of e-discovery in Canada, and discusses the relationship records professionals have with numerous Canadian judicial decisions and the discovery process. RÉSUMÉ L’augmentation exponentielle des documents numériques a mené les archivistes et les gestionnaires de documents à développer des approches de plus en plus sophistiquées pour gérer et conserver ces documents, non seulement pour appuyer les opérations quotidiennes d’une organisation, mais aussi pour faciliter le repérage de ces documents dans l’éventualité d’un procès. Le processus d’administration de la preuve électronique a ajouté des nouvelles pressions aux responsabilités des professionnels de l’information, puisque les organisations sont tenues responsables des documents qu’elles rendent disponibles aussi bien que de ceux qu’elles ne peuvent pas fournir. En Amérique du Nord, les décisions des tribunaux américains par rapport aux questions de l’administration de la preuve électronique ont grandement éclipsé celles des tribunaux canadiens. Cet article fournit une perspective historique de l’émergence de l’administration de la preuve électronique au Canada et commente des liens entre les professionnels de l’information et les nombreuses décisions judiciaires canadiennes, de même qu’avec le processus d’administration de la preuve électronique.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.009
Science and technology studies0.0160.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchivariaSame topicDigital and Traditional Archives ManagementFrench-language works237,207