Stewarding Collections of Trauma: Plurality, Responsibility, and Questions of Action
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
Des efforts consciencieux sont faits travers le monde pour prserver la documentation lie aux atrocits humaines, dans le but de les reconnatre, d'en apprendre, et peut-tre aussi de diminuer la probabilit de futurs torts.Pourtant, pour les archivistes chargs de sauvegarder ces collections, il demeure des questions pineuses sur le plan thique par rapport aux faons d'accomplir ce travail.Dans cet article nous identifions des dfis systmiques et structurels qui entravent les efforts de prserver thiquement ces collections de trauma.Nos rflexions critiques sont ancres dans le contexte d'une institution qui se constitue pour conserver le matriel li la Commission de vrit et rconciliation (CVR) du Canada.Nous examinons les discussions qui se poursuivent avec les personnes impliques dans la cration et le dveloppement du Centre national pour la vrit et la rconciliation (CNVR), ainsi que notre tude des documents prsents en cour et des reportages des mdias portant sur la CVR et le dveloppement du CNVR.Nous signalons l'assemblage de forces socio-techniques, politiques et lgales qui ont eu une influence sur les agissements des personnes qui grent des collections de trauma.Nous accentuons comment les personnes impliques dans le dveloppement du CNVR sont des participants dans les initiatives de colonisation du Canada, tout en tant les descendants de cet hritage colonisateur (comme nous le sommes aussi en tant que chercheurs tudiant le dveloppement du CNVR).Afin d'appuyer celles et ceux qui sont confronts aux questions d'action dans cet espace compliqu, nous nous inspirons du travail d'Iris Marion Young pour clairer les pratiques des archivistes face aux questions de conflit, de pluralit, de l'exercice du pouvoir personnel et de mfiance qui sont sous-jacentes la conceptualisation et la gestion des collections de trauma.ABSTRACT There are dedicated efforts around the world to steward material related to human atrocities, with aspirations to acknowledge, learn from, and perhaps lessen the probability of further harm.Yet for the archivists charged with stewarding these collections, there remain ethically fraught questions of how to do this work.Through this article, we identify systemic, structural challenges that confront efforts to ethically steward collections of trauma.Our scholarly reflections are grounded in the context of an institution being created to hold materials related to Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).We reflect on ongoing discussions with those involved in the inception and development of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR) and our review of court documents and media accounts related ARCHIVARIA 80 (Fall 2015): 89-118 Archivaria, The Journal of the Association of Canadian Archivists -All rights reserved to the TRC and development of the NCTR.We call attention to the assemblage of socio-technical, political, and legal forces that influence the actions of those managing collections of trauma.We highlight how those involved in the NCTR's development are participants in and descendants of Canada's legacy of colonizing initiatives (as are we, researchers studying the NCTR's development).To support those facing questions of action in this complicated space, we draw on the work of Iris Marion Young to inform archivists' practice related to the issues of conflict, plurality, agency, and distrust that underlie the design and management of collections of trauma.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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