Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction 1. No Fame Required: Collaboration, Community, and the Georgia LGBTQ Archives Project Morna Gerrard, Georgia State University 2. Placed Out: Providing a Home for the Records of the Children's Aid Society and the Orphan Trains Maurita Baldock, New-York Historical Society 3. I Really Can't Wait to Archive this Exchange: Exploring Processing as Appraisal in the Tim Kaine Email Project Benjamin S. Bromley, Roger Christman, and Susan Gray Eakin Page, Library of Virginia 4. Hardware for SoftPoems: Appraisal and Acquisition of Vintage Computer Equipment Will Hansen and Matthew Farrell, Duke University 5. From Projects to Policy: The Evolution of a Systematic Reappraisal Program Tina Lloyd, Library and Archives Canada 6. Terabytes from Far-Off Lands: Acquiring Records of the Ford Foundation International Fellowships Program Jane Gorjevsky and Dina Sokolova, Columbia University 7. So Much to Do, So Little Time: Prioritizing To Acquire Significant University Records Laura Uglean Jackson, University of Wyoming 8. The Studio Theatre Archives: Staging an Embedded Appraisal Leahkim A. Gannett, Vincent J. Novara, Kelly J. Smith, and Mary Crauderueff, University of Maryland 9. Making the Bulb Want to Change: Implementing an Active Electronic Records Appraisal and Acquisition Program Brad Houston, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee 10. Weaving the Web of Influence: Maximizing Archival Appraisal and Acquisition through the Use of Spider Advocates Shelley Sweeney, University of Manitoba 11. Reappraisal and Deaccessioning: Building for the Future by Removing Some of the Past James Gerencser, Dickinson College 12. Tap into History: The Birth of the Oregon Hops and Brewing Archives Tiah Edmunson-Morton, Oregon State University About the Author
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".