Bibliographic record
Abstract
Appraisal for selection determines which records of a creator will be permanently preserved for future generations. The archival community has continually attempted to establish guidelines that will provide assistance for the accomplishment of this difficult task. In recent years, a few studies of particular organizations and their records have offered practical guidelines that can serve as models for the appraisal of the records of other, similar creators. Among these are two models of publishing companies. While offering practical guidelines, such models represent only potential standards for appraisal. Determining their viability requires comparing them to an actual body of records created, used and maintained by a publisher. This thesis discusses the results of the comparison of the models to the reality of the records of the Vancouver-based publishing house of Douglas & Mclntyre Limited. Descriptions of the intent, format and included records of each model; and an examination of the history, structure, functions and records of the company are followed by a discussion of their points of correspondence and divergence. Comparison found that both models were only partially viable as appraisal standards. Tending to emphasize material of greatest interest to secondary users, each model included records that provided evidence of the functions and activities of publishing books. Failing to include any or all of the administrative, and especially financial records, of greatest use to the creator, neither model documented fully the operations of a publishing business. The thesis concludes with a consideration of which publishing records should be preserved; prevailing assumptions about business records; and the responsibility for the permanent preservation of a representative body of evidence of the full range of the company's functions and activities.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".