Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this collection of ten essays is to explore the "progression, direction, and drift of archival thinking about the nature and purpose of archives [,] and the role of archivists and archival institutions in the preservation of documentary heritage" (p.vii).The volume comprises three sections.Part 1, "Foundations," considers the development of archival theory over time; Part 2, "Functions," focuses on some of the pragmatic implications of managing records; and Part 3, "Models and Metaphors," examines some of the assumptions that have helped frame the archival mindset.This is primarily a Canadian product.The editors are well known Canadian academics Terry Eastwood and Heather MacNeil, based at the University of British Columbia and the University of Toronto, respectively.Of the eleven authors, six are Canadian (four academics and two professional practitioners); the remaining contributors are academics (three are from the United States, one from the United Kingdom, and one from Australia).The book exhibits a mainly Canadian context and largely Anglophone perspective, and focuses on record-keeping environments originally influenced by English governmental administrative practice.A more influential framework however, described by Heather MacNeil in her introduction, was that outlined by Terry Cook in 1997. 1 This highlighted two broad themes: that archivists are active shapers of documentary heritage, rather than passive, objective custodians; and that archival theory is determined by context, time, and place rather than being universal and unchanging.This approach, perhaps originally conceived as postmodern, is widely accepted today and underpins this work.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".