MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W202602341

Panoramas del pasado: archiveros, historiadores y combates por la memoria

2010· article· es· W202602341 on OpenAlexaff
Terry Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueTabula: revista de archivos de Castilla y León · 2010
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLibraries, Manuscripts, and Books
Canadian institutionsRoyal Society of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Los historiadores y archiveros se acercan al pasado documental  de formas diferente. Los historiadores se centran en el “archivo y las cuestiones del poder, memoria e identidad alrededor de la inscripcion inicial de un documento (o la serie de documentos).Los archiveros se concentran en los y en la historia de los documentos a traves del tiempo, incluyendo las numerosas intervenciones de los archiveros (y de otros) que transforman (y cambian) el archivo original en los archivos. Este articulo explora la historia de las dos profesiones y las falsas ideas que ocultan los mas profundos matices de los multiples contextos que rodean los documentos y  que pueden mejorar su comprension y uso. Se concluye que los archivos no son depositos de documentos sin problemas que estan a la espera de que el historiador, sino sitios activos de la entidad y del poder, y ambas profesiones deben aceptar la subjetividad de los archivos.HISTORIA DE LOS ARCHIVOS / TEORIA ARCHIVISTICA / RELACION HISTORIADOR-ARCHIVERO / VALORACION DE ARCHIVOS / ARCHIVOS POSMODERNOS Historians and archivists approach the documentary past differently. Historians focus on the and issues of power, memory, and identity centred around the initial inscription of a document (or series of documents). Archivists concentrate on and the history of documents over time, including the many interventions by archivists (and others) that transform (and change) that original archive into archives. This essay explores the history of the two professions and the resulting misconceptions that blind both to deeper nuances of the multiple contexts surrounding records that may enhance their understanding and use. It concludes that archives are not un-problematic storehouses of records awaiting the historian, but active sites of agency and power, and both professions should accept the subjectivity of archives.HISTORY OF ARCHIVES / ARCHIVAL THEORY / HISTORIAN-ARCHIVIST RELATIONSHIP / ARCHIVAL  APPRAISAL / POSTMODERN ARCHIVESHistory of archives / archival theory / historian-archivist relationship / archival  appraisal / postmodern archives

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.012
Scholarly communication0.0100.010
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.160 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTabula: revista de archivos de Castilla y LeónSame topicLibraries, Manuscripts, and BooksFrench-language works237,207