Bibliographic record
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. RESUME Ce texte presume que les archives sont un entrepot d’information factuelle tout en etant chargees des relations de pouvoir de nature historique et geographique avec lesquels elles sont impliquees. Les archives peuvent etre un depot ordinaire, un appareil d’interpretation puissant, une vue epistemologique sur le monde, et souvent les trois a la fois. Cependant, saisir les ramifications theoriques des « archives » problematisees 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 meme chose. Afin d’essayer de corriger cette disjonction qui survient parfois entre la theorie et la pratique, ce texte presente une histoire d’un paysage racialise qui s’etend a partir d’une incursion dans un centre d’archives historique dans son sens le plus traditionnel – un depot local de documents gouvernementaux. Le texte suggere que les questions et problemes examines dans ce cas specifique transcendent ce site, ce qui presente une pertinence savante plus large pour un grand public.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".