Power, Identity, Integrity, Authenticity, and the Archives: A Comparative Study of the Application of Archival Methodologies to Contemporary Privacy
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.
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. RESUME Le droit au domaine prive (« privacy ») occupe une place proeminente dans la gestion des archives et par consequent dans la litterature. Comme archivistes, nous avons un role de confiance afin de determiner l’acces aux archives dont nous avons la garde. Ceci est une zone qui, en raison de la marche progressive de la technologie, se developpe rapidement dans son administration, meme si son but ultime est constant : assurer un acces approprie au patrimoine documentaire. Ce texte tente de faire le lien entre les developpements dans ce champ identifies lors de travaux effectues grâce au projet InterPARES et les questions de methodologie archivistique et meme la theorie. Les tendances en jurisprudence et en politique montrent que meme si nous pouvons nous attendre a ce que notre gestion de l’acces soit jugee, il y a d’autres defis aussi fondamentaux qui doivent etre affrontes. La mondialisation du commerce, le partage de donnees gouvernementales et la jurisprudence signifient que meme la ou la reglementation stable et equitable du droit au domaine prive a ete mise en place – comme elle semble l’avoir ete au Canada – il reste qu’il y a des menaces et des defis graves a cet accommodement. L’element du consentement dans le contrat actuel entre le citoyen et les archives devra peut-etre etre reetudie plus tot que prevu. Ces defis sont examines tels qu’ils se rapportent aux methodologies professionnelles etablies. Enfin, en apportant a cette discussion le postmodernisme philosophique de Jacques Derrida et les approches archivistiques postmodernes tel qu’exemplifie par le point de vue du continuum, la definition, le potentiel et les limites du droit au domaine prive comme proposition archivistique postmoderne sont consideres.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it