El diseño de sistemas de información como imperativo para recalcular archivos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artículo aborda la importancia de incluir el diseño de sistemas de información como una competencia necesaria para los profesionales del archivo y, además, como una etapa o dimensión en los modelos que explican la existencia de los documentos de archivo –el ciclo de vida y el continuo de los documentos archivísticos (continuum )– en ambientes tecnológicos emergentes como la Tecnología de Registros Distribuidos (TRD) (Distributed Ledger Tecnology - DLT ). Para examinar la incorporación del diseño de sistemas de información al plan de estudios archivístico, analizamos las propuestas curriculares en Canadá, Australia, USA y el Reino Unido. Al revisar el ciclo de vida y el continuum, estudiamos ambos modelos y proponemos, basados en la metodología de investigación del diseño, la incorporación del diseño de sistemas de información en ambos modelos, como una etapa o dimensión para la existencia de documentos de archivo. Concluimos que existe la necesidad de revisar ambos modelos y que hay, actualmente, una carencia de competencias de diseño de sistemas de información en el currículo archivístico, lo que puede representar una barrera en la creación, uso, conservación y preservación de documentos de archivo fidedignos en emergentes ambientes tecnológicos tales como DLT. This paper discusses the importance of including information systems design as a necessary skill for records professionals and also as a stage or dimension in the models explaining the records existence – the life cycle and the continuum – in emerging technologies environments such as DLT. To analyze the inclusion of information systems design as part of archival science curricula, we analyzed the curriculum guidelines in Canada, Australia, USA and the United Kingdom. To revisit the life cycle and continuum we analyzed both models and suggested, based on the design research methodology, the inclusion of information systems design in both models as a stage or dimension needed for the existence of authoritative records. We conclude that there is a need to revisit both models and include information systems design skills in the present archival science curricula in order to avoid barriers to the creation, use, maintenance and preservation of authoritative records in emerging technologies environments such as DLT.
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 | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".