Towards an Understanding of the Archival Discipline in Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lorraine Gadoury, Archivaria’s French-language Editor, first proposed a special issue of the journal at the meeting of the Editorial Board held in Winnipeg in June 2001. The aim was to offer English-language readers a glimpse into Quebec’s French-language archival literature by translating a selection of the finest articles published over the last few years. In February 2002, a committee consisting of Lorraine Gadoury, representing Archivaria, Robert Nahuet, representing the Association des archivistes du Quebec (AAQ), and Denise Rioux, representing the journal Archives, began the task of choosing articles. Committee members first set the time frame, establishing 1992 to 2002 as the period of their focus. They then proceeded to review the publications where noteworthy articles in archival science had appeared, including the journal Archives, and the proceedings from both the AAQ’s annual conference and the seminars hosted by the Groupe interdisciplinaire de recherche en archivistique (GIRA). The most intriguing articles identified in this preliminary assessment were then discussed at a series of committee meetings, where members commented on each text. It was decided not to try to identify articles addressing the various archival functions; rather, selection should be based on the intrinsic quality of an article. In January 2003 a preliminary list of sixteen articles was presented to Candace Loewen and Robert McIntosh, a former and future general editor of Archivaria, to make the final selection for publication. They looked for the texts they considered to be most relevant to anglophone readers in light of articles previously published in Archivaria. A total of eight were selected.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".