MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1782854233

Art and Digital Records: Paradoxes and Problems of Preservation

2008· article· en· W1782854233 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John Roeder

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivaria · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesContext (archaeology)ArtArt historySociologyHistoryArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The second phase of InterPARES included an extensive investigation of art theory and practice. In the context of previous studies of records and authenticity in archival science, this is perhaps surprising, but it influenced the researchers’ conceptions of the new sorts of record-like electronic displays that are increasingly evident in business, government, and science. It also suggested new dimensions to the concept of authenticity for such displays, by referring to art theorists’ conception of performance. InterPARES 2 case studies and conceptual analyses showed how complicated these digital record-like documents are, embedded as they are in rich cultural and technological contexts, as well as the juridical and administrative ones familiar to archivists. Ironically, this clarifies how difficult it is to preserve both art and art-like digital records. RÉSUMÉLa deuxième phase d’InterPARES comprend une enquête étendue sur la théorie et la pratique de l’art. Dans le contexte des études précédentes sur les documents d’archives et l’authenticité dans le milieu des sciences de l’archivistique, on peut être surpris de constater que cette phase a influencé la pensée des chercheurs par rapport aux nouvelles sortes d’affichages électroniques à caractère documentaire qui deviennent de plus en plus courants dans le monde des af faires, du gouvernement et des sciences. Elle a aussi permis d’apporter de nouvelles dimensions au concept de l’authenticité pour ce genre d’af fichage, en se référant au concept de la performance, telle que définie par les penseurs de l’art. Les études de cas d’InterPARES 2 et les analyses conceptuelles ont révélé la complexité de ces documents numériques à caractère archivistique, influencés comme ils le sont par les contextes culturels et technologiques, ainsi que par les contextes juridiques et administratifs que les archivistes connaissent déjà. L’ironie du sort veut que cette clarification montre la complexité de la préservation de l’art et des documents numériques à caractère artistique.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0110.084
Scholarly communication0.0250.061
Open science0.0040.024
Research integrity0.0070.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.153 · 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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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