University Archives and Records Programs in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
University archives and records management programs in Canada and the United States are phenomena of the post-World War II era. Surveys undertaken by the Society of American Archivists from 1949 to the mid- 1960s found that universities in Canada and the United States managed their institutional archival records primarily as a part-time activity, preferring instead to devote resources to traditional library collections including manuscripts and rare books. The survey the authors conducted in the spring of 2002 revealed the persistence of old trends and the struggle of the university archivists and records managers to balance old and new needs. The survey results demonstrated the effectiveness of an advisory records management committee on the promotion of records and archives policies and procedures, the need for compliance audit, and the development and delivery of systematic training on information management. A major weakness identified by survey respondents was the lack of institution-wide electronic records management policies and procedures developed in cooperation with senior administrators, information technology staff, university archivists, and records managers. Another weakness is the absence of official standards for university archives and records programs. The release of ISO 15489, Information and documentation - Records management in September 2001, provides an important departure. This international standard, when used in conjunction with the SAA Guidelines for College and University Archives, will provide Canadian and American universities with the tools to address current challenges in order to develop a comprehensive archives and records program.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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 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".