MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W174460046

Lester J. Cappon and the Creation of Records: The Diary and the Diarist

2013· article· en· W174460046 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Richard J. Cox

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivaria · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormalityHumanitiesHistoryArt historySociologyArtLawPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article est un examen de Lester J. Cappon comme expert en preuves historiques, en dition de documents et en thorie et pratique archivistiques, puis comme crateur de sources archivistiques, conscient de laisser des traces documentaires pour les chercheurs futurs.L'article se penche sur les faons dont Cappon s'est servi de son journal intime comme dclencheur de la mmoire dans le but de documenter sa vie, sa carrire et sa famille, puis comme moyen de se motiver poursuivre ses propres projets de recherche (surtout les proccupations avec la gestion de son temps).L'article expose les caractristiques mcaniques et physiques du journal intime.On pourrait s'attendre ce qu'une personne comme Cappon, avec ses intrts et ses habilets professionnelles soit plus port l'autorflexion -et on n'est pas du.Cappon crivait la fois pour tre lu et pour qu'on se rappelle de lui, choisissant d'inclure dans ses textes des commentaires trs personnels son gard et au sujet de sa carrire, ainsi qu'au sujet de sa famille et de ses collgues.Cappon se servait souvent de son journal intime comme moyen de rflchir sa propre carrire et aux possibilits quelle offrait, surtout quand il approchait de l'ge de la retraite.Il est clair aussi qu'il tenait son journal intime pour un lectorat futur, puisque plusieurs entres sont trs formelles, tant au niveau de l'expression que des explications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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