Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pour souligner le premier quart de siècle d'Archivaria, cet article présente une perspective personnelle sur la création de ce périodique, son style, ses objectifs, son auditoire et ses collaborateurs ainsi que sur la manière dont il a été reçu au sein de la communauté à ses débuts.Sur la base d'un examen de trois articles, l'auteur cherche à éviter de s'en prendre aux problèmes reliés à l'archivistique ou à Archivaria mais se permet quelques flèches gratuites (sans attaquer les RDDA).Il enfourche quelques chevaux de bataille, se permet quelques bons mots et prétend à une régénération triomphale et une affirmation de certaines idées archivistiques.ABSTRACT In celebration of Archivaria's first quarter century, this article presents a personal perspective on the founding of the journal, its style, objectives, target readership and contributors, and the early reception by the community.Based on an appreciation of three articles, the author goes on to avoid coming to grips with most issues, both archival and of Archivaria, takes a few gratuitous pot shots (but not at RAD!), rides some old hobby horses, exercises some neat words, and purports to herald a triumphal regeneration and affirmation of certain ideas archival.Twenty-five years!How much has changed since that sweet and pleasant summer day almost a generation ago when a dozen or more archivists and friends gathered at a cottage at Lac McGregor in Quebec to discuss what Archivaria could be.Above the door to the cottage was a stenciled, hand-coloured, nearly two-metre-long banner that read: 1 ABANDON HOPEFULLY ALL YE WHO ENTER
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".