Coming to Terms with Photographs: Descriptive Standards, Linguistic "Othering," and the Margins of Archivy
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
Cet article confronte certains postulats des archivistes concernant les photographies, en particulier en ce qu'ils faonnent le vocabulaire de notre pratique professionnelle.Il suggre que les archivistes, travers leurs normes et leurs pratiques, sont dans une large mesure responsables du fait que les utilisateurs des archives n'ont jamais apprci leur juste valeur les documents visuels.Parce que les photographies sont comprises et conserves de faon diffrente dans les bibliothques et les centres d'archives, l'article s'attache au discours institutionnel et aux pratiques de celles-ci, particulirement l'usage des termes special media et non-textual , l'adoption par les RDDA du terme graphic material pour dcrire l'art et la photographie et aux implications pour la numrisation la pice.L'auteure suggre enfin que, en adoptant un modle textuel de l'information consigne et un modle bibliographique de la classification des images, nous perptuons notre fixation sur le contenu factuel au lieu de se concentrer sur les origines fonctionnelles des images.En consquence, nous n'arrivons pas incorporer les ides nouvelles et stimulantes sur la ralit et la reprsentation, le contexte et le sens, et ce faisant, nous relguons les photographies aux marges de l'archivistique.ABSTRACT This essay confronts certain assumptions held by archivists relating to photographs, in particular, those which govern the terms we employ in our professional pursuits.It suggests that, if users of archives have persistently failed to appreciate the value of visual materials, then archivists -through their standards and practices -are, in large measure, responsible.Because photographs are understood and preserved in libraries and archives in different ways and for different reasons, institutional discourse, and the practices which are naturalized by and within them, are examined, with particular focus on the use of the terms "special media" and "non-textual," on the adoption by RAD of "graphic material" for art and photography, and on the implication for item-level digitization.Finally, it suggests that by embracing a textual model of recorded information and by adopting a bibliographic model of image classification, we continue to fixate on the factual content rather than the functional origins of visual images.As a result we fail to engage fully with new and exciting ideas about representation and reality, context and meaning, and in the process, relegate photographs to the margins of archivy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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