Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce texte présume que les archives sont un entrepôt d'information factuelle tout en étant chargées des relations de pouvoir de nature historique et géographique avec lesquels elles sont impliquées.Les archives peuvent être un dépôt ordinaire, un appareil d'interprétation puissant, une vue épistémologique sur le monde, et souvent les trois à la fois.Cependant, saisir les ramifications théoriques des « archives » problématisées et comprendre ce que cela signifie « sur le terrain » -du moins dans certains cas, dans certains sites et dans certains exemples empiriques -ne sont pas toujours la même chose.Afin d'essayer de corriger cette disjonction qui survient parfois entre la théorie et la pratique, ce texte présente une histoire d'un paysage racialisé qui s'étend à partir d'une incursion dans un centre d'archives historique dans son sens le plus traditionnel -un dépôt local de documents gouvernementaux.Le texte suggère que les questions et problèmes examinés dans ce cas spécifique transcendent ce site, ce qui présente une pertinence savante plus large pour un grand public.ABSTRACT This article assumes the archive is at once a repository of facts as it also is laden with, and implicated in, historically and geographically constituted webs of power relations.The archive can be a benign repository, a powerful interpretive apparatus, an epistemological frame on the world, and often is all of these at once.But understanding the theoretical implications of a problematized "archive" and knowing what that means "on the ground" -in particular cases and sites and empirical examples -are not always the same thing.In order to help rectify that sometimes-disjuncture between theory and practice, this essay presents a story of a racialized landscape that begins with one foray into an historical archive in a very traditional sense -a local repository of government documents.It suggests that the issues and problems explored in this particular case transcend their site, with broader scholarly relevance for a wider audience.I am not an archivist.However, as an historical and cultural geographer I have had many occasions to use archives over the past twenty years, and have an interest in the archive's implication in the academic or intellectual project that "the archive" purports to support through its yielding of "data."That is, I understand that the archive is at once a repository of facts as it also is laden with, and implicated in, historically (and, I would argue, geographically) constituted webs of power relations that work to make the archive central to
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.030 |
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".