MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133177032

Canadian Archivists: What Types of People Are They?

2000· article· en· W2133177032 on OpenAlex
Barbara Lazenby Craig

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the 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

VenueArchivaria (Association of Canadian Archivists) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsTemperamentContext (archaeology)PopulationLibrary scienceNova scotiaPsychologyPolitical scienceSociologyHistoryDemographyPersonalitySocial psychologyEthnologyArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On retrouve dans cet article les rsultats d'un sondage national sur la personnalit des archivistes au Canada, ralis en 1998 en utilisant le test de Keirsey (Keirsey Temperament Sorter).Les tests et les types de personnalit sont analyss dans le but de fournir le contexte global du sondage canadien, qui fut ralis afin de faire des parallles avec des tudes similaires effectues aux tats-Unis et en Australie.Les rsultats canadiens sont prsents sous forme de tableaux et des comparaisons sont faites avec le portrait des types de personnalit de la population mondiale tel qu'tabli par des tudes faites dans plusieurs pays et accessibles lectroniquement.Ce sondage sur la personnalit des archivistes est reli l'enqute dmographique plus large sur les archivistes canadiens dont il forme une partie.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.184 · 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