Tratamento temático da informação em documentos arquivísticos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses the thematic processing of information, in order to understand the development of this theme in the international archival field. The research was characterized as exploratory and descriptive literature and qualitative approach. The texts were selected in the annals of the International Society of Knowledge Organization (ISKO), which include the International ISKO and national chapters: ISKO-Brazil, ISKO España-Portugal, ISKO-France and NASKO (Canada and United States) and in the annals Working Group (WG) 2 of the National Meeting of Research in Information Science (ENANCIB). 26 articles were evaluated on the following criteria: general aspects (number of items, events, years languages); analysis of authorship (training and professional performance); Text approach; denominations. With the analysis was possible to increase the understanding of the way the thematic representation of information in archival documents has been discussed.
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 | 0.086 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".