The records‐risk nexus: exploring the relationship between records and risk
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
Purpose This paper seeks to explore the nexus between records and risks. It briefly traces different conceptualizations and the historical evolution of risk and risk management and analyzes discourse on risk and the use of risk management in the field of records management and allied disciplines such as archives and information science. Design/methodology/approach The methodological approach involves searching for and extracting for analysis references to “risk” in articles from well‐known journals and subjecting the 248 references to a visual analysis. Findings The visual analysis reveals 15 distinct, and in some cases conceptually related topics or categories of articles on risk. These are analysed further to create a typology of seven distinct topics of discourse defining the records‐risk nexus in the sampled literature. Originality/value This paper contributes an analysis of the literature on records and risk that defines the nexus between the two subjects, presents a typology of discourse on the records‐risk nexus, and demonstrates the use of an innovative methodology (visual analysis) for analysis of large sets of bibliographic data.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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