MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069716788 · doi:10.1353/mov.2011.0010

Present at the Creation: A Memoir

2011· article· en· W2069716788 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wendy Shay

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Moving Image The Journal of the Association of Moving Image Archivists · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMemoirArt historyMedia studiesArtSociologyHistoryVisual artsLibrary scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Present at the CreationA Memoir Wendy Ann Shay (bio) There are facts and there are memories. One thing is certain: everyone involved with the creation of the Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMIA) was focused on establishing an organization. That we would ever celebrate the organization’s twentieth anniversary never entered our minds. AMIA was certainly not created in a day. There was never a Mickey Rooney–Judy Garland moment when we all thought, “Let’s have a professional organization,” and there it was. Creating AMIA was a multiyear, multistep process to which many people contributed and about which even more people had a say. The growth of the field was one of the most important factors leading to the creation of a formal North American group interested in moving image archiving. Beginning as a trickle in the early 1980s, the mid-1980s saw a huge increase in the number of individuals and institutions caring for moving image materials. Suddenly people trained as archivists, librarians, and museum specialists found themselves responsible for film and video collections. Published information about caring for these formats was limited. Consequently, newly minted film and television archivists cast about looking for guidance. The lucky ones found out about the Film Archives Advisory Committee and the Television Archives Advisory Committee (F/TAAC), the informal but significant group described by William T. Murphy in his contribution to this issue. As Murphy points out, during its early years, F/TAAC participants all sat around a single table to share information and discuss common concerns. By the late 1980s, there were just too many people to sit around a single table and talk. Murphy discusses the evolution in F/TAAC meetings as a growing roster of participants necessitated holding the meetings in larger venues as well as organizing panels with presenters and guided discussions. However, throughout its growth, F/TAAC retained its essential roundtable discussion quality. Meetings always provided the opportunity for updates, conversation about matters of concern, and information sharing. In addition, F/TAAC provided new and veteran film and television archivists—many of whom were considered seriously out of the mainstream in their home institutions—with a sense of community as moving image archivists. Attending F/TAAC meetings reaffirmed that moving images were primary historical and cultural documents that deserved archival attention. Despite its lack of formal structure, or maybe because of it, F/TAAC was a unique professional group in which everyone was equal. By 1989, however, it was clear to many of us that we needed to consider how F/TAAC should move forward. There was the issue of pure numbers. Could the group continue to function as it had as more and more people became involved? There was also the issue of representing the field. Without any formal structure, it was impossible for the group to speak in support of film and television preservation. In fact, the group had no mechanism for voting on where to hold the next gathering, let alone for taking public stands on issues of concern. The first Future of F/TAAC Committee was constituted in 1988 during a gathering in Ottawa. With Gregory Lukow of the National Center for Film and Video Preservation volunteering to coordinate the effort, the committee was asked to prepare a questionnaire to survey the field regarding the various options. Committee [End Page 98] volunteers included Murphy (National Archives and Records Administration), Sara Meyerson (ABC News Library), Fay Schreibman (Museum of Jewish Heritage), Maxine Fleckner Ducey (Wisconsin Center for Film and Theater Research), Sam Kula (National Archive of Canada), Barbara Humphrys (Archives Center, National Museum of American History), Steve Davidson (Louis Wolfson II Media History Center), William Reader (U.S. Department of Defense), Sarah Richards (National Library of Medicine), and me (Human Studies Film Archive, Smithsonian Institution). I have no memory of the meetings we held to develop the questionnaire. According to the summary of the survey results, basic questions regarding the size and type of the respondents’ archives were followed by the all-critical F/TAAC-specific questions: what do you want from F/TAAC? Exchanging information? Expressing positions on archival matters? Organizing workshops and seminars? Establishing standards? Publishing? Lobbying? Unified fund-raising...

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Moving Image The Journal of the Association of Moving Image ArchivistsSame topicDigital and Traditional Archives ManagementFrench-language works237,207