Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article examine un cas sans précédent de fraude artistique et de falsifi cation de documents d'archives.Il raconte le cas de John Drewe, un escroc qui a inséré des faux documents dans des archives d'institutions d'art britanniques dans le but de créer des provenances pour des copies d'œuvres d'art.Le texte explique comment les archives ont été infiltrées et décrit le chaos engendré dans le monde de l'art britannique suite à ses actions.Le texte se termine en examinant la portée de ce cas tant pour le monde de l'art que pour le monde des archives.ABSTRACT This article examines an unprecedented case of art fraud and archival tampering.It describes the case of John Drewe, a con man who inserted fraudulent documents in the archives of British art institutions in order to create provenances for forged art works.The article details how the archives were infiltrated and outlines the havoc wrought on the British art world as a result.The article finishes by examining the implications of the case for both the art and archival worlds.In matters of crime, striking similarities exist in the art and archival worlds.Thefts from archives tend to have a lower profile than heists from art galleries, but it is not uncommon for valuable documents to be stolen from archives.In addition to their evidential and informational values, archival documents are also desired for their intrinsic worth.Stolen archival docu ments are typically commodities, that is, they are objects that individuals wish to acquire for their aesthetic or historical properties.Documents seen as particularly valuable in this sense are artifacts such as historic maps, 1 papers * This paper is based on a presentation made to the annual conference of the Association of Canadian Archivists on 30 June 2006 in St. John's.I would like to extend my thanks to Laura Pallister, Johanna Smith, Amy Tector, and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions on this paper.See, for example, Miles Harvey, The Island of Lost Maps: A True Story of Cartographic Crime (Toronto, 2000), which details the thefts of antique maps in the United States and Canada by Gilbert Bland.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.035 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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".