Archives in a changing climate: proposing new “solutions” for a new era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Conference on the History of Records and Archives (I-CHORA) has been held since 2003 as a periodic conference aimed at encouraging and promoting interdisciplinary research into the history of records, recordkeeping practices and recordkeeping institutions.Conferences to date have taken place in Toronto (2003), Amsterdam (2005 and2015), Boston (2007), Perth (2008), London (2010) and Austin (2012), each attracting between 100 and 130 scholars and professionals from around the world (Foscarini et al. 2016, pp.xi-v).The eighth iteration, I-CHORA 8, was held at Monash University in Melbourne on 28-30 May 2018.The theme of the conference was "Archives in a Changing Climate" (http://ichor a.org/).Participants discussed the multiplicity of historical contexts in which archives are created, transmitted, preserved and reactivated, and the fast pace of change to which contemporary recordkeepers have to adjust to keep up with new technologies and new expectations.In the first of two special issues of Archival Science dedicated to papers from I-CHORA 8, we present four articles that propose new "solutions", or better, aspirations, for a new era in archives and recordkeeping.The first contribution by Jessica Lapp suggests a way of rethinking the role played by archivists, whereas the other three articles, by Cate O'Neill, Viviane Frings-Hessami, and Sue McKemmish, Tom Chandler and Shannon Faulkhead, offer ways of reframing recordkeeping practices that focus on the rights of the subjects of the records.
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 | 0.024 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.066 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".