Thinking about the concept of archive: Reflections on the historiography of Altamira
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolEl termino se ha utilizado tradicionalmente para referirse tanto al espacio fisico en el que se almacenan y se estudian documentos historicos como al conjunto de documentos relacionados con la actividad de una persona, organizacion, asociacion, comunidad o nacion. En ambos casos, los archivos han sido considerados espacios privilegiados que proporcionan datos fundamentales para la escritura de la historia. En este articulo se examina dicha concepcion tradicional. Se sugiere que los archivos no son unicamente espacios privilegiados desde los que escribir la historia sino, tambien, construcciones historiograficas que determinan las interpretaciones historicas. Tomando como ejemplo el caso de Juan de Vilanova y Piera, uno de los primeros cientificos en aceptar la autenticidad de las pinturas de Altamira, exploramos en este articulo como las diferentes definiciones del termino archivo determinan las interpretaciones historicas sobre los cientificos del pasado. EnglishThe word 'archive' has been traditionally used to define both the physical place in which historical texts are kept and studied, and the set of documents that relate to the activity of a person, organization, association, community or nation. In both cases, archives have been considered privileged spaces that provide primary data for writing history. In this paper I discuss this traditional conception and suggest that archives are not only privileged sites providing the sources from which histories are constructed, but they are also historiographical constructions that determine historical interpretations. Taking into account the case of Juan de Vilanova y Piera, one of the first scientists to accept the authenticity of the Altamira paintings, I explore in this paper some of the ways in which the definition of 'archive' determines the historical interpretations of past scientists' work.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".