Bibliographic record
Abstract
Section 1: Freedom of information in Britain 1. 'History Must be Written Imperfectly': Closure and Disclosure in British Public Records, 1838-2006 David Vincent 2. Opening Government? The Freedom of Information Act and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Gill Bennett 3. The Freedom of Information Act in Practice: The Historian's Perspective Andrew Flinn and Harriet Jones 4. The Freedom of Information Act and Welsh Devolution Duncan Tanner and Mari Elin Wiliam Section 2: Comparative Experiences of Freedom of Information 5. The Access to Information Shuffle: Historical Researchers Versus the Government in the Netherlands Bob de Graaff 6. Access to Information: Promise Versus Practice in the USA Don B. Schewe 7. Freedom of Information and the American Presidency: A Researcher's Perspective Darby A. Morrisroe 8. The Problematic Freedom of Information Principle: The Swedish Experience Kjell Ostberg and Fredrik Eriksson 9. Access to Information and Historical Research: The Canadian Experience Larry Hannant Section 3: Historians and the Closed Archive 10. Problems in Obtaining and Using Official Records for Research in Irish and British History in the Twenty-first Century Eunan O'Halpin 11. Censorship, Declassification and the History of End of Empire in Central Africa Philip Murphy 12. Researching Contemporary Monetary History: The Archival Experiences of an Economic Historian Michael J. Oliver 13. Political and Digital Divides: The Dual Challenge for Central European Archives Miklos Lojko
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.004 |
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".