Bibliographic record
Abstract
The legislation which created Library and Archives Canada was passed in 2004, establishing one of the first organizations in the world to fully integrate the services and functions of a national library and a national archives. The intent was not simply to combine two functions under a single administration, but to create a new, integrated, knowledge-based institution. One of the first challenges LAC faced was to design an organizational structure that would enable it to achieve its legislated mandate, including making Canada's documentary heritage known and more accessible. The vision of this new institution is embodied in a document called Directions for Change, which sets out five key directions for LAC's future: to become a new kind of knowledge institution; a truly national institution; a catalyst, working with others to strengthen the whole of Canada's documentary heritage; a prime learning destination; and a lead institution in government information management. Directions for Change also established the main elements that would guide LAC through the transformative process, such as making access the primary driver, going digital in all aspects, finding new approaches to describing Canada's documentary heritage, and putting a clear focus on the client. By following this direction, Library and Archives Canada has transformed not only itself, but the shape of our accumulated knowledge, and how it is used.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.003 |
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".