Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the characteristics of archives (records) susceptible to modification by changes in context. After briefly defining the notion of context, the author proposes a complex analytical model, taking into account what archives are, what they do, and what they represent for their creators. By applying such a model to a traditional definition of archives, the author can identify the physical, functional, and symbolic characteristics of archives and explore how they have been conditioned by contexts of recording, communication, and memory making. If they hope to respond to new questions raised by information technology, widespread concerns over privacy, and the phenomenon of globalization, archivists must gain a better understanding of the processes which influence the nature, functions, and values of archives. This article was written with these challenges in mind. By way of a complex analysis of the various processes involved in the production of documents, it highlights the interplay of perspectives within which archives take shape. The exercise shows how the traditional definition of archives is much less static than might be thought at first glance. Archives are a composite, or whole, emerging from a tangle of perpetually interacting parts. Furthermore, this broad definition adapts to the * This paper is based on a paper the author presented at the annual conference of the Association of Canadian Archivists, Edmonton, Alberta, 22 June 2000. The author wishes to thank the National Archives of Canada, Terry Eastwood, and Steven Watt for their help in translating this text.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.095 | 0.018 |
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".