Archives, postmodernism, and the Internet : the return of historical narrative in archival public programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis argues that postmodernism and the Internet have begun to affect the nature and place of public programming in Canadian archives.The thesis maintains that they have prompted a return to historical narrative, a key feature of nineteenthand early twentieth-century public programming in Canadian archives.This tradition was undermined in the late twentieth-century by the assefiion by alchivists of a distinct professional status apart from their former identity as historians.This thesis maintains that the understandable profession-building priorities of the new archival profession shifted attention and enelgy from public plogramming concerns and public programming based on histolical narrative.The efforts of some archivists in the late 1980s to advocate for a higher priority for public programming reflect discontent with the often marginal status of public programming.The arrival in archival circles of postmodernism and the Internet in the 1990s has aided this effort considerably.This thesis maintains that as a result there is a detectable new commitment to rnaking public programming (based on historical narrative information) a central feature of archival wolk.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".