Bibliographic record
Abstract
Appraisal is arguably the aspect of archival theory and practice which has developed most over the past decade.Debate over appraisal methodology, purpose, and tactics has been lively in the pages of archival literature, including Archivaria.Most of this debate, however, has been in the form of articles and documents describing specific practices, theories, or issues.There has been little written which attempts to synthesize the recent discourse.Craig's is therefore a timely work, providing an up-to-date overview of appraisal thinking in the early twenty-first century.In reviewing this book it is important to recognize what it aims to do, and what it does not.Craig is clear that "it is not intended to be a manual."Rather, she provides an introduction to the concept of appraisal, its purposes and development, and seeks to identify areas of agreement in current thinking.While a range of contemporary methodologies are outlined, this is a work of reflection, not instruction.Appraisal means many different things to different people: for Craig archival appraisal is "the intellectual activity of weighing the relative value of records to decide which ones may be destroyed and why, and which ones must be kept and why -to serve the lasting interests of a larger community over a period of time" (p.2).This in turn is situated in a more general concept of appraisal, which includes "valuation for the purposes of capture, keeping, control, and disposal" (p.28).This activity is carried out by archivists in a wide range of organizational settings.A real strength of this book is its recognition of the diversity of environments in which archives operate -the discussion is relevant and accessible to all.For example, the difficulty in applying functional analysis to personal papers is described.Craig's discussion of appraisal is one that acknowledges that this activity is not just a theoretical construct, but a task carried out in the
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 | 0.095 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.115 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.044 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".