Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various conceptions of evidence permeate all aspects of archival discourse, but at no point is a concept of evidence directly addressed and explicated in archival terms. While the seeming ubiquity of the term seems to suggest that evidence is, or has the potential to be, an important archival concept, a certain lack of clarification effectively diminishes such importance and furthermore glosses over the complexities of the concept. Moreover, the archival notion of records as a special kind of evidence draws primarily upon other disciplinary conceptions of evidence, which, while emphasizing the scholarly use of records, do not take into proper account the archival use and treatment of records. In considering the concept of evidence in archival discourse, this thesis seeks to clarify the role of evidence as a traditional and contemporary term of archival practice and to further formulate a concept of evidence that is particular to archival practice - that is, an archival concept of evidence. In clarifying evidence as an archival term of practice, this thesis explores how evidence serves to express a certain functionality of records and how a concept of evidence serves to establish certain terms or grounds of archival practice. In considering the potential limitations of evidence as an archival term of practice, this thesis explores the extent to which the archival notion of records as a special kind of evidence draws upon legal conceptions of evidence in general and a highly limited, rule-bound concept of legal evidence in particular. In attempting to formulate an archival concept of evidence, this thesis explores current trends in Anglo-American evidence scholarship that constitute a broader approach to the study of evidence in academic law and traces a broader concept of evidence apart from the legal rules. This thesis then formulates a broader concept of evidence in archival terms and considers its possible applications to and implications for archival practice.
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 | 0.145 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.119 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.052 | 0.077 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".