InterPARES 2 and the Records-Related Legislation of the European Union
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce texte fournit un aperu de la lgislation, des politiques et des rglements de l'Union europenne par rapport aux exigences pour la prservation des documents numriques.Il sert aussi comme point d'entre un champ d'enqute sur lequel le projet InterPARES 2 s'est pench, c'est--dire l'tude des barrires et des outils pour la prservation des documents numriques qui peuvent se trouver dans la lgislation de bon nombre de pays dans le monde, y inclus l'Union europenne en tant qu'entit supra-nationale.ABSTRACT This article provides an overview of European Union legislation, policy, and regulations relating to the requirements for the preservation of digital records.It also serves as a window into one line of inquiry being undertaken in the InterPARES 2 project, that is, the study of the barriers and enablers to the preservation of digital records that may be found in the enabling legislation of a number of countries all over the world, including the European Union as a supranational entity.This article will focus on issues of digital preservation in the European Union (EU) legislation.Its aim is to identify weaknesses, either explicit or implicit, in current laws and regulations that both individual EU countries as well as the EU as a supranational body need to address in order to support digital preservation.The findings that are here presented are based on research conducted in the context of InterPARES 2, the second phase of the International Research on Permanent Authentic Records in Electronic Systems Project that was established with the objective of developing the
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it