Bibliographic record
Abstract
The notion of authenticity has become a regular preoccupation within archival literature, and concern has been aired in numerous articles about its intention, achievability, or even relevance in a records management context. This article investigates these concerns by reconstructing the meaning of the word in relation to its original function through an evaluation of the impact of “memory,” “proof,” and “belief” on its veracity. Such investigations ultimately point to social construction as the most purposeful manifestation of authenticity, where the authentes record provides the truest of templates for this most polemic of attributes. RESUME La notion de l’authenticite est devenue une preoccupation constante dans la litterature archivistique et de nombreux articles ont ete consacres a son intention, sa realisation, voire meme sa pertinence dans un contexte de gestion de documents. L’article explore ces questions en examinant le sens meme du mot « authenticite » en lien avec sa fonction d’origine, a partir d’une evaluation des facons dont « la memoire », « la preuve » et « les croyances » agissent sur sa veracite. De telles analyses concluent que la construction sociale est la manifestation la plus palpable de l’authenticite, ou les documents authentes offrent le meilleur gabarit pour cette caracteristique polemique.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.020 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".