Participatory Appraisal and Arrangement for Multicultural Archival Collections
Bibliographic record
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-oriented processes. This can enable context to be represented meaningfully in archives of traditionally marginalized communities. We believe this process can help build culturally 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. RÉSUMÉLa théorie archivistique s’est longtemps servie de principes conçus pour préserver la valeur contextuelle des documents. Les auteurs pensent que les pratiques traditionnelles de l’évaluation, du classement et de la description peuvent être reformulées comme des processus participatifs et axés sur la communauté. Ceci peut permettre au contexte d’être articulé de façon significative dans les archives de communautés traditionnellement marginalisées. Ils croient que ce processus peut mener vers la création de centres d’archives plus pertinents au point de vue culturel (« culturally relevant ») tout en permettant aux communautés minoritaires de partager leurs expériences avec un plus grand public. En s’ouvrant à un plus grand éventail d’outils pour inviter les communautés marginalisées à participer au processus de préservation, les archivistes peuvent sauvegarder les connaissances locales tout en créant des archives qui font appel aux notions de la représentativité et de l’autonomisation.
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 | 0.128 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".