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
This research aimed to gain a detailed understanding of how genealogists and historians interact with, and make use of, finding aids in print and digital form. The study uses the lens of human information interaction to investigate finding aid use. Data were collected through a lab‐based study of 32 experienced archives' users who completed two tasks with each of two finding aids. Participants were able to carry out the tasks, but they were somewhat challenged by the structure of the finding aid and employed various techniques to cope. Their patterns of interaction differed by task type and they reported higher rates of satisfaction, ease of use, and clarity for the assessment task than the known‐item task. Four common patterns of interaction were identified: top‐down, bottom‐up, interrogative, and opportunistic. Results show how users interact with findings aids and identify features that support and hinder use. This research examines process and performance in addition to outcomes. Results contribute to the archival science literature and also suggest ways to extend models of human information interaction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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