Providing Grounds for Trust II: The Findings of the Authenticity Task Force of InterPARES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 1999 and 2002, the International Research in Permanent Authentic Records in Electronic Systems (InterPARES) Project investigated the issues associated with the long-term preservation of authentic electronic records. Within the InterPARES Project, the Authenticity Task Force was given the task of developing conceptual requirements for assessing and maintaining the authenticity of electronic records. This article presents some of the results of the research undertaken by the Task Force, following up on an article published in Archivaria 50. It examines the results of analysing the case studies of live elctronic systems from the perspective of contemporary archival diplomatics and the final articulation of requirements for assessing and maintaining the authenticity of electronic records. RÉSUMÉEntre 1999 et 2002, le projet InterPARES (International Research in Permanent Authentic Records in Electronic Systems) s'est penché sur les problèmes reliés à la conservation à long terme de documents électroniques authentiques. Dans le cadre du projet, c'est le groupe de travail sur l'authenticité qui fut chargé d'élaborer les exigences conceptuelles nécessaires à l'évaluation et au maintien de l'authenticité des documents électroniques. Cet article présente certains résultats de la recherche du groupe de travail, dans la suite d'un article précédent paru dans Archivaria 50. Il examine les resultats de analyse de systèmes de documents électroniques actifs dans la perspective de la diplomatique archivistique contemporaine et sur présente la formulation définitive des exigences nécessaires à l'évaluation et au maintien de l'authenticité des documents électroniques.
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 | 0.069 | 0.162 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".