Taking Custody, Giving Access: A Postcustodial Role for a New Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers the relationship between custody and access focusing on the vital role that access to historical records plays in the construction of community memory. It explores the principle of archival custody as it has developed primarily in the English-speaking world, its historical background, its mid-twentieth century evolution into postcustodialism, and suggests that access be a primary role for the custodian in the new century. RÉSUMÉCet article considère la relation entre la garde des documents et leur accès en mettant l'accent sur le rôle vital que joue l'accès aux documents historiques dans la construction de la mémoire collective. Il explore le principe de la garde des documents tel qu'il a été développé principalement dans le monde anglo-saxon, son arrière-plan historique ainsi que son évolution au milieu du XXe siècle en postcustodialism. Enfin il suggère que l'accès doit avoir un rôle primordial pour les archivistes ayant la garde des documents dans le siècle qui commence.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".