Stewarding Collections of Trauma: Plurality, Responsibility, and Questions of Action
Bibliographic record
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 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.RÉSUMÉDes efforts consciencieux sont faits à travers le monde pour préserver la documentation liée aux atrocités humaines, dans le but de les reconnaître, d’en apprendre, et peut-être aussi de diminuer la probabilité de futurs torts. Pourtant, pour les archivistes chargés de sauvegarder ces collections, il demeure des questions épineuses sur le plan éthique par rapport aux façons d’accomplir ce travail. Dans cet article nous identifions des défis systémiques et structurels qui entravent les efforts de préserver éthiquement ces collections de trauma. Nos réflexions critiques sont ancrées dans le contexte d’une institution qui se constitue pour conserver le matériel lié à la Commission de vérité et réconciliation (CVR) du Canada. Nous examinons les discussions qui se poursuivent avec les personnes impliquées dans la création et le développement du Centre national pour la vérité et la réconciliation (CNVR), ainsi que notre étude des documents présentés en cour et des reportages des médias portant sur la CVR et le développement du CNVR. Nous signalons l’assemblage de forces socio-techniques, politiques et légales qui ont eu une influence sur les agissements des personnes qui gèrent des collections de trauma. Nous accentuons comment les personnes impliquées dans le développement du CNVR sont des participants dans les initiatives de colonisation du Canada, tout en étant les descendants de cet héritage colonisateur (comme nous le sommes aussi en tant que chercheurs étudiant le développement du CNVR). Afin d’appuyer celles et ceux qui sont confrontés aux questions d’action dans cet espace compliqué, nous nous inspirons du travail d’Iris Marion Young pour éclairer les pratiques des archivistes face aux questions de conflit, de pluralité, de l’exercice du pouvoir personnel et de méfiance qui sont sous-jacentes à la conceptualisation et à la gestion des collections de 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.
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 | 0.031 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.092 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".