‘Plus c’est la même chose’: Surveying and identifying local government archives repositories in the United States and Canada
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
The safeguarding of the permanent and historical records of local, municipal and territorial archives is a daunting challenge to governments, regardless of size. Proper environmental control, storage and security, and loss or alienation through theft and disaster are all important concerns each entity must address. The Local Government Records Round Table and the Government Records Section of the Society of American Archivists conducted a survey of local government archives in the United States and Canada in the autumn of 2014 to take a snapshot of the status of local government archives. The last survey of this nature was conducted in 1976 by the State and Local Records Committee of the Society of American Archivists. The survey instrument, in English, Spanish, and French, was designed to help better understand the location, needs, uses and best practices associated with local government archival records. It was created with the knowledge that the guardians of historic local records are important, whether they are held by a government, library, or historical organisation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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