Power, Identity, Integrity, Authenticity, and the Archives: A Comparative Study of the Application of Archival Methodologies to Contemporary Privacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Privacy has a prominent place in the management of archives and consequently in the literature. As archivists, we have a trusted role in determining access to archives in our care. This is an area that, owing to the onward march of technology, develops rapidly in its administration even if the overall aim is constant: ensuring appropriate access to documentary heritage. This paper attempts to link developments in this area identified in previous work under the auspices of the InterPARES project to issues of archival methodology and even to theory. Trends in jurisprudence and politics mean that although we can expect still to be judged on our management of access, there are other, equally fundamental challenges to be addressed. Globalization of commerce, governmental data sharing, and jurisprudence means that even where a stable and balanced regulation of privacy has been achieved – as it seems to have been in Canada – there are deep-seated threats and challenges to this settlement. The element of consent in the current compact between citizens and the archives may need to be revisited sooner rather than later. These challenges are discussed as they relate to established professional methodologies. Finally, by bringing to bear the philosophical postmodernism of Jacques Derrida and postmodern archival approaches as exemplified by the continuum viewpoint, consideration is given to the definition, potential, and limitations of privacy as a postmodern archival proposition. RÉSUMÉLe droit au domaine privé (« privacy ») occupe une place proéminente dans la gestion des archives et par conséquent dans la littérature. Comme archivistes, nous avons un rôle de confiance afin de déterminer l’accès aux archives dont nous avons la garde. Ceci est une zone qui, en raison de la marche progressive de la technologie, se développe rapidement dans son administration, même si son but ultime est constant : assurer un accès approprié au patrimoine documentaire. Ce texte tente de faire le lien entre les développements dans ce champ identifiés lors de travaux effectués grâce au projet InterPARES et les questions de méthodologie archivistique et même la théorie. Les tendances en jurisprudence et en politique montrent que même si nous pouvons nous attendre à ce que notre gestion de l’accès soit jugée, il y a d’autres défis aussi fondamentaux qui doivent être affrontés. La mondialisation du commerce, le partage de données gouvernementales et la jurisprudence signifient que même là où la réglementation stable et équitable du droit au domaine privé a été mise en place – comme elle semble l’avoir été au Canada – il reste qu’il y a des menaces et des défis graves à cet accommodement. L’élément du consentement dans le contrat actuel entre le citoyen et les archives devra peut-être être réétudié plus tôt que prévu. Ces défis sont examinés tels qu’ils se rapportent aux méthodologies professionnelles établies. Enfin, en apportant à cette discussion le postmodernisme philosophique de Jacques Derrida et les approches archivistiques postmodernes tel qu’exemplifié par le point de vue du continuum, la définition, le potentiel et les limites du droit au domaine privé comme proposition archivistique postmoderne sont considérés.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".