Information governance and power relations: Reflections on archival education in Québec
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
Information governance provides a framework of accountability for the effective and efficient use of information to meet organizational objectives and compliance requirements. While information functions are often carried out by separate units that frequently work in silos, information governance is based on an interactive approach, taking into account notions of participation, power, and negotiation. Power and political competencies, and organizational realities are inherent to effective governance. Not all actors, however have the same political weight and the same skills to assert themselves as important players. The implementation of an information governance framework should enable records managers and archivists to position themselves as key players in the organization. Based on a research project conducted in two phases (a statistical survey in 2015, enriched by interviews in 2017–2019 with information professionals and IT professionals), this paper presents the organizational actors of information governance, the influencing factors that allow them to exert some power over each other, and what competencies are required in context from records managers and archivists to play a strategic role. We also examine the integration of these competencies into university-based archival training programs in Québec, Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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