The nature of ‘document work’, and its implications for radical community archives and their holdings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Around fifty years ago, much of the world experienced a new cycle of mass social unrest. In their wake, the movements of that time have left a mass of records and other documents (typically leaflets, journals, newspapers, posters and bulletins). Today, many of these materials are curated by community-based archives that continue to identify in some manner both with those movements and their successors. But what might these materials be able to tell us about the ‘document work’ (to use Ciaran Trace’s useful concept) that originally led to their creation and use – and, in a broader sense, the experiences of the movement participants who utilised them as integral components of their political engagement? This paper will explore the meaning of document work within the practices of members of Potere Operaio [Potop], one of the most influential of the revolutionary groups formed in Italy during the late 1960s, before concluding with some brief reflections as to the implications of this for the present day work of radical community archives
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 | 0.022 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.140 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".