Study of the archival record and its context : meaning and historical understanding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The claim of archivists to be a scholarly profession is dependent upon their ability to methodically study and understand the meaning of the records in their care. Without such contextual information about the record as the name of its creating agency, the reason for its creation, and the authority by which it was created, archivists and researchers are in a poor position to assess the value and validity of its informational content. Without knowledge of the relationship of the record to other record series, they are likely to overlook additional supporting and/or contradictory documentation and thereby miss a part of the truth they seek. This thesis is directly concerned with the means by which archival sources might be assessed to determine the value of the historical evidence they contain. It proposes a conceptual framework by which study of the original, primary, and secondary meanings of the archival record might be approached. Examples are drawn from close examination of the records of the Corporation of the City of Nanaimo surviving from the period 1875-1904. While acknowledging that extensive study of the significance of documentation might be impossible for archivists in their daily work, this thesis concludes that closer attention must be paid to sources documenting the contextual environment of the record. Such sources are essential to the furtherance of understanding which is the information profession's ultimate goal.
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 | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".