MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2238565391

“Lord, Save Us from the Et Cetera of the Notary”: Archival Appraisal, Local Custom, and Colonial Law

2015· article· en· W2238565391 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Raymond O. Frogner

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivaria (Association of Canadian Archivists) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyLawLegal cultureSociologyPoliticsLegal historyConstitutionSupreme courtPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers the timeless legal and archival challenge to appraise, preserve, and reference unwritten, local custom. In the history of Western law and public archives, we find moments when the disciplines have combined to record and represent local custom. In these periods, methods were refined to capture and embed diverse local customs in the enfolding legal and political values of a dominant order. These periods highlight a local community’s identity and culture and offer a view of the enfolding ideological parameters and assimilating processes used to represent local values. I consider two examples of this legal and archival rendition of local culture: the codification of unwritten, local customary law in the French code civil and the Supreme Court of Canada’s tentative recognition of the probative value of traditional, unwritten Aboriginal custom. The comparison demonstrates that professional models of records appraisal have not adapted well to contemporary records-creating environments of dynamic, collaborative media and the distributed governance and interrelated cultural authorities of our socially diverse constitution. Contemporary archival appraisal continues to privilege textual evidence and frame appraisal decisions within structured, hierarchical juridical models of governance and authority. These modernist interpretive appraisal elements attenuate the archival representation of multiple constituencies of Canadian society. Both legal and archival disciplines require an interpretive model to represent non-textual evidence of the contingent, the particular, the local, and the inductive within the interpretive framework of local social sanction. RÉSUMÉ Cet article se penche sur l’éternel défi légal et archivistique d’évaluer, de conserver et de rendre accessible les us et coutumes locales non écrites. Dans l’histoire du droit et des archives publiques de l’Occident, on trouve des moments où les disciplines ont collaboré pour documenter et représenter les coutumes locales. À ces moments, certaines méthodes ont été mises au point pour capter et enchâsser dans les valeurs légales et politiques de l’ordre dominant diverses coutumes locales. Ces périodes mettent l’accent sur l’identité et la culture d’une communauté locale et permettent une vue d’ensemble des paramètres idéologiques englobants et des processus d’assimilation qui sont utilisés pour représenter les valeurs locales. J’examine deux exemples de cette interprétation légale et archivistique de la culture locale : la codification du droit coutumier local non écrit dans le code civil français et la reconnaissance provisoire par la Cour suprême du Canada de la valeur probante des coutumes autochtones traditionnelles et non écrites. Cette comparaison montre que les modèles professionnels d’évaluation archivistique ne sont pas bien adaptés aux environnements contemporains de création de documents qui comprennent le rôle des médias collaboratifs et dynamiques, ainsi qu’à la gouvernance partagée et aux liens étroits des autorités culturelles de notre constitution socialement diversifiée. L’évaluation archivistique contemporaine continue à privilégier la valeur de preuve textuelle et à formuler des décisions d’acquisition qui cadrent bien avec les modèles juridiques bien structurés et hiérarchiques de la gouvernance et de l’autorité. Ces éléments interprétatifs modernistes du processus d’évaluation réduisent la représentation archivistique de plusieurs groupes représentatifs de la société canadienne. Les disciplines légales et archivistiques requièrent un modèle interprétatif capable de représenter les preuves non-textuelles de groupes représentatifs, de particuliers, de régions et de l’inférence dans le cadre d’interprétation des sanctions sociales locales.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0190.072
Scholarly communication0.0190.011
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.005
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.205
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchivaria (Association of Canadian Archivists)Same topicDigital and Traditional Archives ManagementFrench-language works237,207