MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112104113 · doi:10.47315/archives2019.321.007

The Theoretical Principles of the Appraisal of Documents: Traditions and Modern Trends (Foreign Experience)

2019· article· en· W3112104113 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivi Ukraїni · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Regulatory Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpistemologyHistorySociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main traditions and newest tendencies of foreign archival experience of appraisal of documents are highlighted. On the example of North American (USA, Canada) and European (United Kingdom, Federal Republic of Germany) practices, two opposite approaches to the appraisal were highlighted, the evolution of the criteria system, the formation of the theory and methodology of the procedure were revealed. The relationship between the scientifi c paradigm of archival science, humanities and the appraisal of documents has been demonstrated. Emphasis is placed on the social dimension of assessing of their importance. The diffi culties of appraisal of documents under the conditions of continuous growth of volumes of information flows and the newest format of existence of information were noted. References: 1. Bearman, D. (1989). Archival Methods. Archives and Museum Informatics Technical Reports, 3, 6–16. [in English]. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF028758922. Bezdrabko, V. (2019). Hans Hainrikh Booms i teoriia ekspertyzy tsinnosti dokumentiv. Sumsky istoryko-arkhivny zhurnal, XXXII, 5–11. [in Ukrainian]. https://doi.org/10.21272/shaj.2019.i32.p.53. Bezdrabko, V. (2011). Istoriia nauky pro dokument, abo Vidkryttia vidomoho. Kyiv: Chetverta khvylia. [in Ukrainian].4. Blouin, F. (1979). A New Perspektive on the Appraisal of Business Records: A Review. The American Archivist, 42(3), 312–320. [in English]. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.42.3.v7m73326743063215. Boles, F. & Young, J. M. (1991). Archival Appraisal. New York. [in English].6. Booms, H. (1972). Gesellschaftsordnung und Ueberlieferungsbildung: Zur Problematik archivarischer Qvellenbewertung. Archivalische Zeitschrift, 68, 3–40. [in German]. https://doi.org/10.7788/az.1972.68.1.37. Booms, H. (1987). Society and the Formation of a Documentary Heritage: Issues in the Appraisal of Archival Sources. Archivaria, 24, 85. [in English].8. Brenneke, A. (1953). Archivkunde. Ein Beitrag zur Theorie und Geschichte des europaischen Archivwesens. Leipzig. [in German]..9. Brown, R. (1995). Macro-Appraisal Theory and the Context of the Public Records Creator. Archivaria, 40, 150. [in English].10. Cook, T. (1992). Mind over Matter: Towards a New Theory of Archival Appraisal. The Archival Imagination: Essays in Honour of Hugh A. Taylor. Ottawa. [in English].11. Cook, T. (1997). What is Past is Prologue: A History of Archival Ideas Since 1898, and the Future Paradigm Shift. Archivaria, 43, 30. [in English].12. Couture, C. (2005). Archival Appraisal: A Status Report. Archivaria, 59, 94. [in English].13. Cox, R. J. (1994). The Documentation Strategy and Archival Appraisal Principles: A Different Perspective. Archivaria, 38, 36. [in English].14. Craig, B. L. (1992). The Acts of the Appraisers: The Context, the Plan and the Record. Archivaria, 34, 179. [in English].15. Dollar, Ch. M. (1978). Appraising Machine-Readable Records. The American Archivist, 41(4), 423–430. [in English]. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.41.4.g333h2666262136316. Droysen, J. G. (1960). Historik. Vorlesungen uber Enzyklopadie und Methodologie der Geschichte. Muenchen. [in German].17. Dzhenkinson, H. (1934). Rukovodstvo po arkhivovedeniiu i problema sozdaniia novykh arkhivov. Moskva. [in Russian].18. Enders, L. (1971). Die weitere Rationalisierung des Bewertungsverfahrens. Archivmitteilungen. Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis des Archivwesens. Staatliche Archivverwaltung DDR, 21, 85. [in German].19. Fishbein, M. H. (1970). A Viewpoint on the Appraisal of National Records. The American Archivist, 33, 176. [in English]. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.33.2.l4351487411483h420. Fishbein, M. H. (1971). Appraising Information in Machine Language Form. The American Archivist, 35(1), 35–43. [in English]. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.35.1.pw06x804698g111221. Grimard, Ja. (1994). Synthèse et commentaires sur les séances IV et V. GIRA. La mission de l’archiviste dans la société, 236–240. [in French].22. Ham, G. F. (1975). The Archival Edge. The American Archivist, 38(1), 5. [in English]. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.38.1.7400r8648112842423. Harrison, H P. (1970). Archival appraisal. In UNESCO: Audiovisual archives: A practical reader. Paris. [in English].24. Jenkinson, H. (1922). A Manual of Archive Administration, Including the Problems of War-archives and Archive Making. London–Edinburgh–New York–Toronto–Melburne–Bombay: Oxford at Clarendon Press. [in English].25. Kolsrud, O. (1992). The Evolution of Basic Appraisal Principles – Some Comparative Observations. The American Archivist, 55, 27. [in English]. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.55.1.v05w2kg671667v6h26. Kromnow, A. (1976). The Appraisal of Contemporary Records. Eighth International Congress on Archives. Washington. [in English].27. Kula, S. (1970). Archival appraisal of moving images. In UNESCO: Audiovisual archives: A practical reader. Paris. [in English].28. Kula, S. (1970). Selection policy and selection standards for television archives. In UNESCO: Audiovisual archives: A practical reader. Paris. [in English].29. Levchenko, L. (2013). Arkhivy i arkhivna sprava Spoluchenykh Shtativ Ameryky: istoriia ta orhanizatsiia. Mykolaiv: Ilion. [in Ukrainian].30. Lippert, W. (1901). Das Verfahren bei Aktenkassationen in Sachsen. Deulsche Geschichtsblatter, 2, 258. [in German].31. Lippert, W. (1901). Das Verfahren bei Aktenkassationen in Sachsen. Deulsche Geschichtsblatter, 2, 257–258.32. McKay, E. (1978). Random Sampling Techniques. A Method of Reducing Large Homogeneous Series of Congressional Papers. The American Archivist, 41, 281–289. [in English]. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.41.3.t756k0723551txg333. Meinecke, F. (1959). Zur Theorie und Philosophie der Geschichte. Werke IV. Stuttgart. [in German].34. Meinert, H. (1939), Die Aktenwertung. Versuch einer metodologischen Zusammenfassung. Mitteilungsblatt des Generaldirektors der (preussischen) Staatsarchive. [in German].35. Meisner, H. O. (1939). Schutz und Pflege des staatlichen Archivguts mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung des Kassationsproblems. Archivalische Zeitschrift, 45, 34. [in German]. https://doi.org/10.7788/az-1939-jg0736. Menne-Haritz, A. (1992). Formation en archivistique: pour répondre aux besoins de la société du 21e siècle. Montréal. [in Russian]. 37. Mercer, H. (2004). Appraisal Policy Background Paper – the «Grigg System» and Beyond. London. [in English].38. Müller, K. O. (1926). Fragen der Aktenaussscheidung. Archivalische Zeitschrift, 36, 188–215. [in German]. https://doi.org/10.7788/az-1926-jg1539. Müller, К. (1929). Die neue preussichen Kassationsbestimmungen. Archivalische Zeitschrift, 38, 87–107. [in German]. https://doi.org/10.7788/az-1929-jg0740. Phillips, F. (1984). Developing Collecting Policies for Manuscript Collections. The American Archivist, 47(1), 39–42. [in English]. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.47.1.x07k74g7331762q241. Reed-Scott, J. (1984). Collection Management Strategies for Archivists. The American Archivist, 47(1), 23–29. [in English]. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.47.1.wt6721l537810j1342. Roberts, J. W. (1990). Archival Theory: Myth or Banality? The American Archivist, 53, 112, 116. [in English]. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.53.1.a56364w71027642443. Rohr, W. (1957). Zur Problematik des modernen Archivwesens. Der Archivar, 10, 74. [in German]. https://doi.org/10.7788/az-1958-jg0444. Roy, J.-L. (1992). Gérer la mémoire du monde. Abstract of Papers ’92: Archivum: Conférence inaugurale du XIIe Congrès international des archives, Actes du XIIe Congrès international des archives, XXXIX (pp. 83–95). [in French].45. Samuels, H. W. (1986). Selecting from the Past for the Future: Towards a Strategy for Historical Documentation. Abstract of Papers ’86: Proceedings of the Society of Southwest Archivists Meeting (pp. 8–13). San Antonio. [in English].46. Samuels, H. W. (1986). Who Controls the Past? The American Archivist, 49(2), 109–124. [in English]. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.49.2.t76m2130txw4074647. Samuels, H. W. (1992). Varsity Letters: Documenting Modern Colleges and Universities. Chicago: Society of American Archivists and Scarecrow Press. [in English].48. Sante, G. W. (1958). Behorden – Akten – Archive. Alte Taktik und neue Strategie. Archivalische Zeitschrift, 54, 90. [in German]. https://doi.org/10.7788/az-1958-jg0549. Schellenberg, T. R. (1996). Modern Archives: Principles and Techniques. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [in English].50. Schuursma, R. L. (1975). Principles of selection in sound archives. Phonographic Bulletin, 11, 12–19. [in English].51. Taylor, Н. А. (1990). The Totemic Universe: Appraising the Documentary Future. Vancouver: Archives Association of British Columbia. [in English].52. The Wilson Report: Modern Public Records. Selection and Access (1981). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, XIII. [in English].53. Thornton, M. W. (1970). New Viewpoints on Establishing Permanent Values of State Archives. The American Archivist, 33, 163–174. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.33.2.41j077013517190754. Volkotrub, O. N. (2015). Zhurnal «The American Archivist» iak dzherelo vyvchennia istorii arkhivnoi spravy u SShA (1938–2008 rr.) [Journal “The American Archivist” as a source for studying history of archival affairs in the USA (1938–2008)] (Extended abstract of Candidate’s thesis). Kyiv. [in Ukrainian].55. Wehler, H.-U. (1969). Zum Verhaeltnis von Geschichtswissenschaft und Psychoanalyse. Historische Zeitschrift, 208, 536. [in German]. https://doi.org/10.1524/hzhz.1969.208.jg.52956. Zechel, A. (1965). Probleme einer Wissenscaftstheorie der Archivistik mit besonderer Beruecksichtigung des Archivwesens der Wirtschaft. Zeitschrift fur Firmengeschichte und Untemahmenbiographie, 10(5/6), 298. [in German]. https://doi.org/10.1515/zug-1965-5-61257. Zechel, A. (1965). Werttheorie und Kassation. Der Archivar, 18, 1–16. [in German].58. Zechel, А. (1965). Probleme einer Wissenschaftstheorie der Archivistik mit besondere Berücksichtigung des Archivwesen der Wirtschaft. Zeitschrift fur Firmengeschichte und Untemahmenbiographie, 10(5/6), 285–300. [in German]. https://doi.org/10.1515/zug-1965-5-61259. Zimmermann, F. W. (1979). Theorie und Praxis der archivalischen Wertlehre. Archivalische Zeitschrift, 75, 266. [in German]. https://doi.org/10.7788/az.1979.75.1.26360. Zimmermann, F. W. (1958). Wesen und Ermittlung des Archivwertes: zur Theorie einer archivalischer Wertlehre. Archivalische Zeitschrift, 54, 103, 104, 107. [in German]. https://doi.org/10.7788/az-1958-jg07

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it