MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1894242956

Turning Macro-appraisal Decisions into Archival Holdings: Crafting Function-based Terms and Conditions for the Transfer of Archival Records

2006· article· en· W1894242956 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Catherine A. Bailey

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivaria · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchivistLibrary scienceDocumentationPolitical scienceContext (archaeology)Records managementElectronic recordsNational archivesGovernment (linguistics)HistoryComputer scienceWorld Wide WebArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the National Archives of Canada (now Library and Archives Canada) introduced macroappraisal in 1990, its government records archivists have sought to create terms and conditions for the transfer of archival records based on functions and activities. In 2003, the NA/LAC Terms and Conditions Work Group (TCWG) bridged the divide between appraisal and acquisition by developing the necessary methodology to translate an archivist’s macro-appraisal decisions into disposition tools (the formal Terms and Conditions for the Transfer of Archival Records within the Records Disposition Authority, as well as a complementary Application Guide) that would ensure the identification and selection of archival records in all media. This article places the work of the TCWG within the context of the evolution of federal government record-keeping and macro-appraisal methodology as applied within LAC, and presents an overview of the disposition tools that it produced. RÉSUMÉDepuis que les Archives nationales du Canada (dorénavant Bibliothèque et Archives Canada) ont introduit la pratique de la macro-évaluation en 1990, leurs archivistes responsables des documents gouvernementaux ont tenté d’établir des conditions et des modalités de transfert pour les documents d’archives en tenant compte de l’analyse fonctionnelle. En 2003, le groupe de travail des modalités de transfert (GTMT) des AN/BAC a fait le lien entre l’évaluation et l’acquisition en élaborant la méthodologie nécessaire pour assurer que les décisions de l’archiviste découlant de la macro-évaluation se traduisent en une documentation pour disposer des documents (les conditions et les modalités pour le transfert de documents archivistiques dans l’autorisation de disposer des documents, ainsi que le guide d’application complémentaire). Ces outils permettent aux archivistes d’assurer l’identification et la sélection de documents d’archives dans tous les médias. Cet article situe le travail du GTMT dans le contexte de l’évolution de la gestion des documents du gouvernement fédéral et de la méthodologie de la macro-évaluation telle qu’elle est employée à BAC, puis il présente un survol de la documentation produite par le GTMT pour disposer des documents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.108
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.108
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0180.021
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchivariaSame topicDigital and Traditional Archives ManagementFrench-language works237,207