MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963046371

Artist-Run Archives: Developing a digital community archive with PAVED Arts artist-run centre

2017· article· en· W2963046371 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shannon Lucky

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisual artsThe artsArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case study details my partnership with PAVED Arts, an ARC in Saskatoon, Canada dedicated to supporting photography, audio, video, electronic, and digital arts. In this presentation I discuss how we designed a usable digital archive that serves PAVED's organizational culture and core uses. As an information technology librarian, I bring my IT and information management expertise to this collaboration with the PAVED staff and wider community to assess, organize, preserve, and provide access to their multi-format archives. Using community archiving and participatory action research methods, we focus on designing and implementing a digital archive that serves the needs of the PAVED community and is sustainable for this non-profit organization. Canadian artist-run centres (ARCs) are vital experimental and emerging contemporary art galleries and production centres that serve researchers, curators, artists, and the public. Many of these non-profit ARCs have been active for over three decades, accumulating significant records about their history, artist-run culture, and the work they show and produce. Because this experimental work is rarely documented elsewhere, ARC collections can be the most authoritative source for this information. While some ARCs have digitized records, most have kept physical documents in file cabinets, basements, and storage units, making them effectively inaccessible and vulnerable to damage and loss. With a focus on supporting emerging and experimental work, but lacking a mandate to preserve and provide access to their archives, ARCs are in the difficult position of having valuable collections that they want to share, but lacking the resources needed to do so.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0270.013
Scholarly communication0.0130.008
Open science0.0050.014
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital and Traditional Archives ManagementFrench-language works237,207