The reticent archives: Preserving LGBTTTIQ histories
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biases, subjectivity and a subconscious worldview can all affect how archivists approach documenting those communities outside their own, or mainstream, culture. Those communities, too, having been historically marginalised in various ways, may not always be willing participants in the archival endeavour. This paper examines how well Canadian archivists have documented LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) history, drawing on the results of two surveys and a review of existing descriptions on ArchivesCanada, the national database of archival holdings. The impact of government policy toward the LGBT community, donor reluctance, the potential dichotomy between personal records documenting an individual life and those of a social movement, and changing research trends are some of the external issues identified as having an effect on the nature of the archival record. The move away from acquiring private records, and failure on the part of archivists to be proactive in their collection acquisition, are identified as issues of concern, suggesting the spectre of larger and growing absences in the archival record is looming.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it