Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laws proclaiming freedom of information have been introduced in many countries in the past twenty years, creating familiarity with the idea that governments can achieve accountability by providing public access to current records. Some archivists hold the view that the preservation and accessibility of non-current records in archival repositories is similarly related to the principle of accountability; however this idea is not widely diffused and even less accepted, primarily because the concept of accountability is imprecise and has not been integrated into archival theory. This thesis analyses the concept of accountability and demonstrates its relevance in the context of archival science. It provides an explanation of the relationship between accountability and record keeping, which is found in an agent's obligation to create, preserve and provide access to records in order to account to the source of authority for the actions documented by the records. Also, it shows the connection between the concept of accountability and other administrative, legal, political and ethical values, a connection which is found in the complex and sometimes abstract social relationships that involve delegation of authority. Then, the thesis proceeds to examine the appearance of the concept of accountability in archival literature on issues of preservation, ownership, accessibility and management of records, and analyses it in relation to archival as well as administrative, political or legal concerns. Finally, the accountability owed by archivists is examined, through analysis of the claims made by repositories, users and the archival profession for authority over archives and theircare. The thesis proposes that recognition of the importance for archives of meeting accountability obligations depends on the general understanding of records as evidence of actions, and acknowledgement of an organizational and public interest in their preservation.
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 | 0.036 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".