An Examination of Oral History and Archival Practices among Graduate Students in Select Canadian Comprehensive Research Universities
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
Preserving oral history interviews is an important aspect of oral history practice. This article examines a sample of theses published by Canadian graduate students and asks two questions: first, how many researchers who conducted oral histories archived their interviews; second, how many researchers consulted oral history interviews as a secondary data source? Thirty-six theses from five universities were examined. 81% of the theses applied oral history as a methodology; 41% examined oral history interviews previously recorded; 22% conducted original interviews in addition to consulting previously recorded interviews. The archival rate of original interviews was 28%. Possible reasons for the low archival rate are discussed. Recent Tri-Agency funding agencies requiring Canadian scholars to adhere to new open access policies could result in higher preservation rates of oral history interviews
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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