Decolonizing archival description: Can linked data help?
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
ABSTRACT Archival description documents the provenance of records, their interrelationships, and the processes of their creation. The concept of archival provenance was first elaborated in the context of 19th‐century European archival institutions and reflects particular socio‐historical perspectives on the nature of records and recordkeeping. Decolonizing archival description is a necessity, not only because it contributes to the discoverability of Indigenous knowledge woven into records of shared provenance, but also because it disrupts traditional concepts of singular provenance, calls attention to complex processes of records creation, and permits more expansive understanding of record contexts. Linked data appears to (1) promise the ability to represent complex multiple provenances, (2) promote multiple perspectives on the creation of records and (3) allow archives and Indigenous communities to work together to implement what the First Nations Information Governance Centre has characterized as Indigenous ownership, control, access and possession of records of shared provenance. From a variety of perspectives, this panel provides a critical analysis of linked data as a candidate solution for decolonizing archival description.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it