Digital Preservation Functionality in Canadian Repositories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inspired by the inclusion of digital preservation functionality as one of the recommendations in the Behaviours and Technical Recommendations of the COAR Next Generation Repositories Working Group (2017), this task group set out to make progress on the building of a common understanding of basic digital preservation requirements and functionality necessary to achieve this vision of a sustainable digital preservation network (a suggestion within the Portage Network’s 2018 white paper Research Data Preservation in Canada). This report focuses on technical functional requirements, and as such, it is intended for scholarly communication librarians and repository administrators assessing or looking to enhance the digital preservation support in their repositories. \n \n \nCe document tire son inspiration du rapport « Behaviours and Technical Recommendations of the COAR Next Generation Repositories Working Group » (2017) où figure parmi ses recommandations la fonctionnalité de conservation numérique. Ce groupe a donc tenté de faire progresser le développement d’une la réalisation d’une compréhension commune des exigences de base de la préservation numérique et des fonctionnalités nécessaires pour atteindre cette vision d’un réseau de préservation numérique pérenne (tel que proposé dans le livre blanc du Réseau Portage, « La préservation des données de recherche au Canada »). Ce rapport se concentre sur les exigences techniques fonctionnelles et, à ce titre, il est destiné aux bibliothécaires de la communication savante et aux administrateurs de dépôts qui évaluent ou cherchent à améliorer les supports de conservation numérique dans leurs dépôts.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".