Bibliographic record
Abstract
The realm of archives has always had an affinity for objects. Whether those objects were records, photographs, or artifacts determined their locus within the archival institution, or whether they were relegated to some distant storage facility or an affiliated place, such as a museum or library. But today’s altered landscape has necessitated a rethinking of archival “objecthood,” of the archives as a meaning-forming place, and of the basic tenets of archival acquisitions and appraisal strategies. UNESCO’s Program for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage provides an example of contemporary efforts to archive not only the culturally ephemeral, but also the quintessentially intangible. As such, it contributes to a reflection on the underlying premises of the archives’ preference for and elevation of objects, and suggests frameworks by which archivists may re-conceptualize their roles in preserving culturally meaningful expressions regardless of physicality. RÉSUMÉLe domaine des archives a toujours eu une affinité avec les objets. La nature des objets en question, documents, photographies ou artefacts, déterminait leur place au sein de l’institution archivistique ou les reléguait à un centre d’entreposage hors-site ou à une autre institution, comme un musée ou une bibliothèque. Mais les récents changements sur le terrain ont nécessité un réexamen du « statut de l’objet » (« objecthood ») archivistique, des archives comme endroit créateur de la signification (« a meaning-forming place ») et des principes de base servant à l’acquisition archivistique et aux stratégies d’évaluation. Le programme de l’UNESCO pour la protection du patrimoine culturel intangible donne un exemple des efforts contemporains pour archiver non seulement ce qui est culturellement éphémère, mais aussi ce qui est fondamentalement intangible. Comme tel, il contribue à une réflexion sur les prémisses sousjacentes de la préférence pour les objets et de leur valorisation par les archives, tout en proposant des cadres de travail permettant aux archivistes de re-conceptualiser leur rôle dans la préservation de ce qui a une valeur culturelle, peu importe sa forme physique.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".