MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075791635 · doi:10.3828/comma.2007.3-4.6

Two Examples of Cooperation between Libraries and Archives (Powerpoint)

2007· article· en· W2075791635 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

VenueComma · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChoseMerge (version control)Library scienceHarmonizationPolitical scienceThe InternetDigital libraryWorld Wide WebSociologyComputer scienceLawArtInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For some ten years the two professions have been engaged in in-depth reflection on the content of their missions in an environment transformed by the Internet and driven by the digital world. The place of libraries in society has indeed considerably increased while the audiences for archives broadened and diversified. A consensus was reached about the concepts of a one-stop service and of local, national and international networks. This implies an active convergence between libraries, archives, museums and other cultural institutions. Canada and Quebec chose to merge their institutions in the field: Libraries and Archives Canada in 2004 and Bibliotheque et Archives nationales du Quebec between 2002 and 2006. But if the analysis and the inspiration are common, the implementation and the models chosen are distinct but equally interesting: while BAC chose integration, BAnQ preferred harmonization.ction

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.180 · 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