202.1 Digging into the Digital Preservation Declaration of Shared Values.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In December 2017, a group of digital preservation service providers released a Digital Preservation Declaration of Shared Values draft document and invited feedback from the digital preservation community. This draft document was the culmination of months of effort on the part of representatives from North American (United States and Canada) non-profit organizations who attempted to develop a set of common principles and values related to their organization’s digital preservation service offerings and community efforts. This effort around defining shared values was an initial step in identifying potential areas of collaborative work that these service providers could explore in the near future. During the open comment period (December 2017 to March 2018), numerous comments, insights, and critiques were provided by individuals. This community feedback has assisted this nascent group in identifying where the document needs to be clarified and focused, but more importantly has highlighted a number of issues worth exploring more deeply. This panel will begin with a brief background and contextual framing for the Digital Preservation Declaration of Shared Values, and would then shift to a facilitated discussion with the audience around some of the issues identified during the open comment period, including, but not limited to: Open vs. closed in relation to content, software source code, infrastructure; Challenges of ‘affordability’ and costs of digital preservation services; Cumulative goal of digital preservation (ie, a compiled record of human events, a partial digital reflection); The definition of ‘Collaboration’; and Sustainability as a shared value.
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 | 0.023 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
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".