MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1815643845

Victoria: The Keep-It-All State? The Impact on Archives of the Crimes (Document Destruction) Act 2006 and the Evidence (Document Unavailability) Act 2006

2010· article· en· W1815643845 on OpenAlex
Kathy Sinclair

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivaria · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationPolitical scienceUnavailabilityLawState (computer science)HumanitiesArtEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En 2006, Victoria est devenu le premier tat australien promulguer des lois qui criminalisent spcifiquement la destruction de documents dans des situations o aucun procs n'a encore commenc.Le Crimes (Document Destruction) Act et la lgislation complmentaire, l'Evidence (Document Unavailability) Act, incluent des infractions et des peines pour celles et ceux qui dtruisent des preuves.La nouvelle lgislation a immdiatement provoqu un malaise profond dans les secteurs publics et privs de Victoria : est-ce que ces lois voulaient dire qu'une organisation ne pouvait plus dtruire aucun document car on pourrait un jour en avoir besoin dans des procs n'ayant pas encore t prsents en cour ou n'ayant mme pas encore t envisags?Les agences se sont tournes vers le Public Record Office Victoria (PROV), l'autorit en matire des archives de l'tat, pour obtenir des conseils et des claircissements sur les rpercussions possibles de ces lois sur la gestion des documents et l'archivisti que.Cet article examine les questions que le PROV a d considrer pour dvelopper sa rponse aux deux lois et, de faon plus large, il explore comment la tendance de garder au cas o peut crer des dfis d'ordre intellectuel et pratique, tant pour les gestionnaires de documents que pour les archivistes.ABSTRACT In 2006, Victoria became the first state in Australia to enact laws spe cifically criminalizing document destruction in situations where no legal proceed ings had yet commenced.Included in the Crimes (Document Destruction) Act and its supporting adjunct, the Evidence (Document Unavailability) Act, are offences and penalties for those who destroy evidence.The new legislation sent an immediate and profound wave of unease throughout Victoria's public and private sectors: Did these laws mean that organizations could no longer destroy any record because it may one day be needed in discovery for a case not yet launched or even contemplated?Agencies turned to the Public Record Office Victoria (PROV), the state archival authority, for advice and clarification on what the Acts meant for recordkeeping and archives.This article reviews the issues that PROV considered in developing a response to the two Acts, and more broadly, how open-ended directions to "keep in case" can pose both intellectual and practical challenges for records managers and archivists alike.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.225 · 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