MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993901586 · doi:10.1080/09647770903314738

Emerging convergence? Thoughts on museums, archives, libraries, and professional training

2009· article· en· W1993901586 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMuseum Management and Curatorship · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsLibrary and Archives Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvergence (economics)Training (meteorology)MuseologyHistoryGeographyArchaeologyEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract While ‘convergence’ has been a topic of much discussion in the museum, archive, and library communities, the emerging similarities between these three types of cultural heritage institutions – most apparent in their on-line activities – are not yet evident in the education of professionals who work in them. Curriculum models still support traditional definitions of the roles, functions, and audiences of archives, libraries, and museums. Professional practice can evolve in the context provided by digital heritage and digital curation, and respond in a manner that supports common goals across institution types. New inter-disciplinary foci for professional training can provide skills needed across the sector, while respecting the distinct histories, cultural roles, and responsibilities of libraries, archives, and museums.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it