Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2015, Archivaria and the Association of Canadian Archivists both celebrate 40 years of existence. This anniversary coincides with another milestone from 1975: the publication of To Know Ourselves, the report of the Commission on Canadian Studies (also known as the Symons Report), which identified Canadian studies as a critical tool in the quest for an understanding of Canadian identity. In keeping with the Symons Report’s call for self-knowledge, this overview article explores four specific themes addressed in the pages of Archivaria over the past four decades: first, the role of archival education and the question of whether an archivist in fact needed a formal education, and if so, what should be studied; second, the nature of the archival profession and the debate about whether the archivist was and should be a historian, information manager, librarian, or other; third, the nature and relevance of archival theory and the discussion of what such theory comprised and how definitive it might be in a postmodern age; and fourth, the history of the profession in Canada and internationally, and the exploration of how records, archives, and archivists have evolved in Canada and elsewhere in the world over many centuries. The article concludes by calling for more exploration of these same themes, which remain as valid today as they have been over the past four decades as a means of helping archivists in Canada and around the world “explain ourselves.” RESUME En 2015, Archivaria et la Association of Canadian Archivists fetent tous deux leurs 40 ans d’existence. Cet anniversaire coincide avec un autre evenement marquant de 1975 : la publication de Se connaitre, le rapport de la Commission sur les etudes canadiennes (aussi connu comme le rapport Symons), qui identifia les etudes canadiennes comme un outil crucial dans la quete pour comprendre l’identite canadienne. Conformement a l’appel de connaissance de soi lance dans le rapport Symons, cet article panoramique explore quatre themes specifiques abordes entre les pages d’Archivaria au cours des quatre dernieres decennies : dans un premier temps, le role de l’education en archivistique et la question a savoir si un archiviste a, en fait, besoin d’une education formelle, et si oui, ce qui devrait etre a l’etude; dans un deuxieme temps, la nature de la profession archivistique et le debat a savoir si l’archiviste etait et devrait etre historien, gestionnaire de documents, bibliothecaire, ou autre; dans un troisieme temps, la nature et la pertinence de la theorie archivistique et la discussion a propos d’en quoi consiste ce champ theorique et si la theorie est definitive ou non a l’ere postmoderne; et dans un quatrieme temps, l’histoire de la profession au Canada et dans le monde, et l’exploration des facons dont les documents d’archives, les centres d’archives et les archivistes ont evolue au Canada et ailleurs dans le monde sur plusieurs siecles. Cet article se termine en lancant un appel pour une etude plus poussee de ces memes themes qui demeurent tout aussi valides aujourd’hui qu’ils ne l’ont ete au courant des quatre dernieres decennies, dans le but de permettre aux archivistes au Canada et a travers le monde de « se connaitre ».
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".