MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1699691171

Accountability, History, and Archives: Conflicting Priorities or SynthesizedStrands?

2004· article· en· W1699691171 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John M. Dirks

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivaria · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityYesterdayBureaucracyPresentismHumanitiesPolitical scienceSociologyEthnologyLawPhilosophyPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the relationship between the different notions of archives that emphasize history, memory, and accountability. While they provide different rationales for archives, they should be integrated in support of the archival mission. Included is a discussion on how the recent emphasis on accountability has emerged and on how critics, especially from a postmodernist view, have countered that this emphasis on accountability is too bureaucratic and presentist. It detracts from the long term goals of memory, narrative, and heritage. The paper explores the concept of historical accountability, in which records hold yesterday’s organizations and institutions accountable for their actions today, both in moral and (sometimes) in legal terms. The idea of historical accountability provides one way of synthesizing accountability, history, and memory and new opportunities for archives to be seen as important relevant players in society. RESUME Cet article explore la relation entre les differentes notions de l’archivistique qui mettent l’accent sur l’histoire, la memoire et l’imputabilite; celles-ci, bien qu’elles fournissent des justifications differentes, doivent etre integrees afin d’appuyer la mission archivistique. L’article decrit comment l’insistance a recemment ete mise sur l’imputabilite et pourquoi certains penseurs, particulierement postmodernes, ont critique cette tendance comme etant trop bureaucratique et presentiste, portant atteinte aux objectifs a long terme de la memoire, du recit et du patrimoine. L’auteur presente le concept de l’imputabilite historique, selon laquelle les documents rendent les organisations et les institutions responsables aujourd’hui pour leurs actions d’hier, que ce soit en termes moraux et (quelquefois) legaux. L’idee de l’imputabilite historique permet de faire la synthese entre l’imputabilite, l’histoire et la memoire et offre de nouvelles possibilites aux institutions d’archives de jouer un role cle dans la societe.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0070.049
Scholarly communication0.0290.049
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations17
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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