MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005569806 · doi:10.1108/10650750210450103

Saving room for CUSTARD

2002· article· en· W2005569806 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOCLC Systems & Services · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrincipal (computer security)Custard-appleComputer scienceProduct (mathematics)Statement (logic)Task (project management)International standardProcess (computing)World Wide WebLibrary scienceComputer securityPolitical scienceLawManagementMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian‐US Task Force on Archival Description (CUSTARD) has undertaken the process of reconciling the two principal North American standards for archival description – the Canadian Rules for Archival Description (RAD) and the US’ Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts (APPM) – with each other and with the broader international standard of ISAD(G) (General International Standard Archival Description). The anticipated final product of the CUSTARD project will be a new standard for rules governing description of archival holdings. The first tangible product is a “statement of principles” concerning archival description, which will guide the final development of descriptive rules. A complete draft of the CUSTARD rules should be available for review by June 2003, with publication expected in 2004. The new standard being developed will guide the future of archival description.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.159 · 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