MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Authenticity of digital records in practice

2015· article· en· W2330002564 on OpenAlex
Corinne Rogers

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venue2015 Digital Heritage · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Context (archaeology)DemocracyAccountabilityE-GovernmentPublic relationsInternet privacyDigital governmentSpace (punctuation)BusinessPolitical scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide WebHistoryInformation and Communications TechnologyPoliticsLawDigital transformation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability of citizens to access their government's information fully and in a timely manner is one of the cornerstones of democracy. Citizens' rights and government accountability depend on how information - how records - are created, managed, and preserved. One of the critical aspects of government records is the ability to attest to their authenticity over time and across space. This paper presents selected findings of research into how records professionals approach the issue of authenticity of digital records for which they are responsible. While much research has been and continues to be conducted into the protection of authenticity in the context of requirements for digital preservation, little research has been done until now on the practice and beliefs of practitioners.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it