Participatory Appraisal and Arrangement for Multicultural Archival Collections
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La thorie archivistique s'est longtemps servie de principes conus pour prserver la valeur contextuelle des documents.Les auteurs pensent que les pratiques traditionnelles de l'valuation, du classement et de la description peuvent tre refor mules comme des processus participatifs et axs sur la communaut.Ceci peut permettre au contexte d'tre articul de faon significative dans les archives de communauts traditionnellement marginalises.Ils croient que ce processus peut mener vers la cration de centres d'archives plus pertinents au point de vue culturel ( culturally relevant ) tout en permettant aux communauts minoritaires de partager leurs expriences avec un plus grand public.En s'ouvrant un plus grand ventail d'outils pour inviter les communauts marginalises participer au processus de prservation, les archivistes peuvent sauvegarder les connaissances locales tout en crant des archives qui font appel aux notions de la reprsentativit et de l'autonomi sation.ABSTRACT Archival theory has a long history of utilizing principles designed to preserve contextual value in records.We believe that traditional practices of appraisal, arrangement, and description can be rearticulated as participatory, community-orient ed processes.This can enable context to be represented meaningfully in archives of traditionally marginalized communities.We believe this process can help build cultur ally relevant records repositories while enabling marginalized communities to share their experiences with a wider public.By broadening their traditional tools to actively engage marginalized communities in the preservation process, archivists can preserve local knowledge and create representative, empowered archives.Sources of power are derived from the capacity of cultural institutions to classify and define peoples and societies.This is the power to represent: to reproduce structures of belief and experience through which cultural differences are understood.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it