MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912416085 · doi:10.1177/155019061300900103

Collections Risk Assessment at the Royal BC Museum and Archives

2013· article· en· W2912416085 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCollections A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicConservation Techniques and Studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal British Columbia Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk assessmentRisk managementGeographyPlan (archaeology)Library scienceArchaeologyHistoryBusinessComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Royal British Columbia Museum (RBCM) has a large and valuable collection of archival records, artifacts, specimens and associated information pertaining to the Province of British Columbia's human and natural history. In 2004 and again in 2010 the RBCM conducted a comprehensive risk assessment to identify and quantify the potential impact of threats to the collections. Methodology was based on the Cultural Property Risk Assessment Model (CPRAM). The RBCM risk assessment projects, which included over 30 staff members, were each completed over a period of several months. The results of the latest comprehensive review provide a corporate-wide perspective of the risks to the collection. Some risk related assumptions were confirmed and new issues came to light. As a result of these risk assessments, a Risk Management Implementation Plan has been developed to address the most damaging and imminent threats to the collections. A discussion of the evolution of risk assessment at the RBCM is included.

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 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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0200.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.261 · 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