Knowledge Organization as Knowledge Creation: Surfacing Community Participation in Archival Arrangement and Description
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remix or bricolage is recognized as a primary mode of knowledge creation in contemporary digital culture. Archival arrangement represents a form of bricolage that archivists have been practicing for years. By organizing records according to provenance, archivists engage in knowledge creation. Archival theory holds that records are created as an output from social and bureaucratic processes. Archival description, then, could serve as a form of archival record, bearing evidence of the processes of archival arrangement. Current participatory and community-based approaches to archival description urgently require an evidential record of their processes of community consultation and professional mediation. This paper examines two Canadian community-based, participatory archival projects. Project Naming, at Library and Archives Canada, draws upon Inuit community contributions to augment the often sparse and sometimes offensive descriptions of historic photos of arctic peoples. The Sex Work Database at the University of Manitoba, works with sex work activists to create and apply a tagging folksonomy to a collection of websites, organizational records and news media. Analysis of these diverse, community-based projects reveals how current approaches to description make it difficult to distinguish between professional and community contributions to arrangement and description, and proposes ways to make such contributions more apparent.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 it