MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910127424

Crowd-Sourcing and the Trivial Appropriation of Archives: How Can Their Documentary Efficiency Be Evaluated?

2011· article· en· W2910127424 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nathalie Casemajor Loustau

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes de communication · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppropriationFraming (construction)CrowdsourcingCultural heritageMedia studiesPoeticsSociologyWorld Wide WebAestheticsPolitical scienceComputer scienceArtEpistemologyHistoryLiteratureLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyzes how user generated content is produced and reused in the field of cultural heritage, more precisely through the case of crowdsourcing projects developed by Library and Archive Canada on its website. What roles are contributors invited to endorse ? What are the norms framing user contribution in the various media spaces created by LAC ? How to evaluate these projects ? We’ll see that the paradigm of documentary efficiency is not always the most relevant to assess the triviality of user generated content. Rooting the perspective in cultural democracy and the poetics of everyday life enables us to cast a new light on this informal content.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.153 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes de communicationSame topicDigital and Traditional Archives ManagementFrench-language works237,207