MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2264711274 · doi:10.25071/1708-6701.40227

The Academic Archivist’s Fear of Popular Music

2015· article· en· W2264711274 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Brock Silversides

Bibliographic record

VenueCAML Review / Revue de l ACBM · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchivistPopular musicFocus (optics)MusicologyMedia studiesPopular cultureSociologyLibrary sciencePolitical scienceArtVisual artsComputer sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This talk, delivered at the CAML Conference in Ottawa on June 4, 2015, examines a number of reasons for the reluctance of academic archivists/Special Collection librarians to acquire popular music fonds/collections. Arguments are put forward that popular music is an excellent indicator of the concerns of society and changes in culture, that it is worthy of scholarly research, and that as research trends are changing to incorporate popular music, so too should the collecting focus of music archivists/librarians.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0180.042
Scholarly communication0.0210.011
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0180.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCAML Review / Revue de l ACBMSame topicDigital and Traditional Archives ManagementFrench-language works237,207