Promoting the archives of the Alliance: a case study of outreach at the NATO Archives <sup/>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the institutionalization of the Policy on the Public Disclosure of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Information in 2008, the NATO Archives tasked itself to regularly exhibit publicly disclosed NATO documents, video, audio, photos, publications and artifacts to promote the increasing accessibility of its collection. The success of these exhibitions, which were all initially displayed at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, led not only to a boost in the visibility of the NATO Archives within the organization, but also resulted in their expansion as part of the promotional activities of the Alliance itself, leading up to its 70th anniversary celebrations in 2019. This paper presents an overview of the outreach activities of the NATO Archives, discussing its origins and evolution in an institutional context, highlighting its role in communicating the mission of the NATO Archives and, by extension, of NATO itself. While this case study illuminates a specific experience that is heavily determined by the political and security demands of its particular environment, the resulting narrative is intended to be broadly applicable and perhaps even inspirational for archivists who recognize similar challenges at their respective international organizations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".