Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to report the findings of a research project that analyzed records management (RM) and electronic records management (ERM) course syllabi from North American archival studies’ programs. By identifying the convergences and divergences of the topics and literature found within the syllabi, the authors sought to understand the relationship between the two courses and gain insight about how these courses continue to serve as an integral component of archival studies education. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on a qualitative analysis of 23 RM and 12 ERM course syllabi from 26 academic institutions from North America. The research examined three different aspects of the syllabi: textbooks, required articles and weekly topics. The syllabi were analyzed as separate data sets (RM syllabi and ERM syllabi), which was followed by a comparative analysis of the two types of syllabi. Findings The findings of this study reveal that RM, ERM and (to a lesser extent) DA (digital archives) knowledge as represented in archival education converges in some course contents but diverges in others. Archival educators should pay close attention to overlapping areas so that the courses can better complement each other and advance knowledge representation within archival studies. Research limitations/implications This study only considered graduate-level programs in the USA and Canada. The study did not include syllabi or instructional guides from associate-level programs or professional organizations such as the International Certification of Records Managers or Association of Records Managers and Administrators (ARMA) International. Practical implications The results of this study lead the authors to present two different approaches for how RM and ERM knowledge may be incorporated into archival curriculum. Originality/value This is the first research project to analyze RM and ERM syllabi with regards to the enhancement of records and information management education and archival curriculum development.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it