Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article relève l'absence remarquable des documents personnels au sein des modèles dominants d'évaluation archivistique, que ce soit par le passé ou maintenant, de même que l'insuffisance de la littérature actuelle à traiter des problèmes qui se retrouvent au coeur de l'évaluation des documents personnels.L'auteur suggère que les méthodologies d'évaluation qui se concentrent sur le contexte social entourant les documents d'archives ainsi que sur les fonctions et motivations de leurs créateurs pourraient contribuer grandement à une analyse plus approfondie de ce secteur négligé de la théorie archivistique.ABSTRACT This article examines the notable absence of personal papers from dominant appraisal models, both historically and at present, as well as the inadequacies of our current literature in addressing issues central to the appraisal of personal papers.It then suggests that appraisal methodologies which focus on the societal context of records and the functions and motivations of their creators may have valuable contributions to make in the further consideration of this much neglected area of archival theory.Personal papers, those materials within archives and manuscript repositories defined as "the private documents accumulated by or belonging to an individual," constitute a vital portion of the documentary record. 1 In their Guide to Donating Your Personal or Family Papers to a Repository, the Society of American Archivists lists many types of materials -letters, memoirs and reminiscences, diaries, scrapbooks and photograph albums, professional papers, genealogical information, speeches and lectures, labeled photographs and labeled films, video and audio tapes -which fall within the realm of personal papers, and which, they state, provide "essential clues to the past." 2 All of these materials, the Guide tells readers, "give vital and unique information regarding your life of the history of your family" and "may be important to 1 Lewis J. Bellardo and Lynn Lady Bellardo, eds., A Glossary for Archivists, Manuscript Curators, and Records Managers (Chicago, 1992).
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 | 0.114 | 0.439 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.078 | 0.048 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".