Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Birth of Archival Science. During the romantic period (in the earlier 19th century), the concepts, principles and methods, which still provide the foundations for contemporary archival science today, were formulated and imposed for the first time as a general standard in French administration. This formulation was carried out as a sharp break from the concepts and documentary methods for the treatment and preservation of historical archives that had been developed during the previous century of the Enlightenment. During the positivist era, archival science became essentially a science that described collections and inventories, in a perspective of historical documentation. In the twentieth century, material problems assumed a growing importance and it was in particular an archival -economy, that is to say an archival science, theoretical and applied, of acquisition, selection, classification and cataloguing, of préservation and access, that developed. In the final quarter of the twentieth century, as result of information technologies, a resurgence of documentary practices within this archivai -economy was observed. At the Ecole des Chartes, a new chair of contemporary archival science developed a fundamental archival science, based on the study of 1 record groups as entities in their own right and in their historical context, and of an analytical and systematic study of the diplomatie of contemporary documents, closely linked with the institutional and legal context. At the present time these two approaches are converging, with the evolution of the archival -economy at the international level towards a functional archival science and the necessary deepening of fundamental archival science, confronted with the commonplace use of digital documents and the great increase in their applications.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".