Toward the Archival Multiverse: Challenging the Binary Opposition of the Personal and Corporate Archive in Modern Archival Theory and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article montre les oppositions binaires qui caractérisent la théorie archivistique moderne et plusieurs pratiques professionnelles dans le monde archivistique anglophone, en se penchant surtout sur la façon dont elles se manifestent dans le contexte australien.À une époque quand les amalgamations des bibliothèques et des archives deviennent de plus en plus communes, il importe de considérer en particulier l'impact d'une construction binaire spécifique : d'un côté, la tradition manuscrite dans les bibliothèques, et de l'autre, l'accent placé par la plupart des archives nationales et étatiques sur les archives gouvernementales.Dans cet article, nous contestons l'opposition binaire des archives personnelles et corporatives, en nous inspirant du continuum des documents d'archives, des théories archivistiques postmodernes et des théories allant au-delà de la théorie traditionnelle de la garde des documents (« post-custodial ») développées en Australie et ailleurs, les façons autochtones de savoir, et les pensées émergentes autour de la co-création, de la provenance multiple et simultanée des documents d'archives, et de multivers archivistiques.Nous montrons le besoin de recherche en archivistique et en construction de la théorie qui sont liées à la pluralité des pratiques et des cultures de gestion des documents d'archives personnelles et corporatives, dans un contexte d'interdépendances complexes entre « la preuve du moi » et « la preuve du nous » dans ce continuum, et dans les cultures en ligne et les espaces partagés de nos mondes numériques.En conclusion, nous offrons quelques suggestions par rapport aux excellentes possibilités de recherches plus poussées en gestion des documents privés dans ces contextes.ABSTRACT This article points to the binary oppositions that characterize modern archival theory and much practice in the English-speaking archival world, with particular reference to the way they are manifest in the Australian context.At a time when mergers of library and archives institutions are increasingly an option, it is appropriate to consider in particular the impact of the binary construct of the manuscripts tradition in libraries on the one hand, and the focus of most national and state archives on government records on the other.In this article, we challenge the binary opposition of the personal and corporate archive, drawing on records continuum, postmodern, and postcustodial archival theory as developed in Australia and elsewhere; Indigenous ways of knowing; and emergent thinking on co-creation, the multiple simultaneous provenance of records, and the archival multiverse.We point to the need for archival research and theory building relating to the plurality of personal and corporate record-ARCHIvARIA 76 (Fall 2013): 111-144 Archivaria, The Journal of the Association of Canadian Archivists -All rights reserved keeping behaviours and cultures in the context of the complex interrelationships between "evidence of me" and "evidence of us" in the continuum, and in the online cultures and shared spaces of our digital worlds.We conclude with some suggestions about the rich possibilities for further research on personal recordkeeping in these contexts.
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 | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.105 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".