MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966460902 · doi:10.29173/cais1105

Affective Collections: Care Practices in Digital Community Archives

2019· article· en· W2966460902 on OpenAlex
Kaitlyn Grant

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSI · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicOral History, Memory, Narrative Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisOral historySociologyDigital ArchivesPublic relationsProcess (computing)Digital eraPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsLibrary scienceEngineeringWorld Wide WebQualitative researchComputer scienceSocial scienceAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper will present the literature, theoretical framework, and preliminary findings of my MLIS/MA thesis. My research explores how digital community archives use participation-based methods to build a feminist ethics of care into the archival process. These participation-based methods encourage community members to contribute to the collecting, describing, and creating of records. I will use thematic analysis and critical discourse analysis to explore communitymade content associated with the Flin Flon Heritage Project and Harvest Moon Oral History. I am specifically exploring how community archives could enact an ethics of care through the use of care practices in a digital environment.

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)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.010
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.220 · 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