Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the professional practice of Archives the Principle of Provenance offers the theoretical framework for understanding the context of records creation and use.Archival Provenance asserts that records originating from the same source must remain together.In the 1980s Canadian archivists enunciated the corollary to the principle of provenance that "any particular set of records should remain as far as possible, in the locale or milieu in which it was created."For communities in Nunavut the vast majority of the historical record lies in distant and usually inaccessible libraries and archives.This is because the records were created by sojourners: whalers, missionaries, the RCMP, government officials and deposited outside after the creators left the communities.In the case of institutional records, the records were usually deposited in a corporate or government archives in Southern Canada.This paper shows how archivists can move from a mono-cultural and hierarchical mindset towards a new corollary that names a creators and authors as essential components of an expanded archival provenance, 1 respects communities and better serves the development of Archives in Nunavut In 1994 Pauloosie Angmarlik told Dr. Emily Faries, "As I have said, our ancestors were straight forward.I use that as a guideline; follow what is told to you." 1 For the first generation of Native Studies research and practice, the knowledge that is transmitted by Elders and traditional teachers to those committed to this new way of learning has been through a participatory praxis of respectful listening.This has been followed by transcription and publication.In addition, the audio and visual tapes have been retained in study centres, libraries, schools and archives.While the immediacy of the original encounter between learner and teacher is diluted in this process of reception and 1 Peter Kulchyski, Don McCaskill, David Newhouse editors, In the Words of the Elders: Aboriginal Cultures in Transition, (Toronto:
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 | 0.037 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.139 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.039 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".