Preservation for diverse users: digital preservation and the “Designated Community” at the Ontario Jewish Archives
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
Purpose Conventional approaches to digital preservation posit that archives should define a Designated Community, or future user group, for whom they preserve digital information. Archivists can then use their knowledge of these users as a reference to help them deliver digital information that is intelligible and usable. However, this approach is challenging for archives with mandates to serve wide and diverse audiences; these archives risk undermining their efforts by focusing on the interests of a narrow user group. Design/methodology/approach A unique approach to this challenge was developed in the context of a project to build a digital preservation program at the Ontario Jewish Archives (OJA). It draws from previous research on this topic and is based on a combination of practical and theoretical considerations. Findings The approach described here replaces the reference of a Designated Community with three core components: a re-articulation of the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) mandatory responsibilities; the identification of three distinct tiers of access for digital records; and the implementation of an access portal that allows digital records to be accessed and rendered online. Together with supplemental shifts in reference points, they provide an alternative to the concept of a Designated Community in the determination of preservation requirements, the identification of significant properties, the creation of Representation Information and in the evaluation of success. Originality/value This article contributes a novel approach to the ongoing conversation about the Designated Community in digital preservation, its application and its limitations in an archival context.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it