A First Look at the Acquisition and Appraisal of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Fonds: or, SELECT * FROM VANOC _Records AS Archives WHERE Value=“true”;
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 2008, the City of Vancouver Archives has been working to develop a digital archives. Much of the funding and accompanying urgency were linked to the City’s obligation to preserve the records of the Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (VANOC). This paper describes some of the difficulties encountered in acquiring VANOC’s digital records and the Archives’ struggles to map the different tasks involved in acquisition and appraisal against the digital processing workflow, which is constrained by the technology used, and therefore less flexible than for analogue records. Complexities are due both to the records creator’s technical environment as well as limitations imposed by the Archives’ digital preservation solution. The paper also considers some of the ways in which these core archival activities may diverge from long-established practices when moving into the digital environment. RÉSUMÉ Les Archives de la ville de Vancouver travaillent depuis 2008 à développer des archives numériques. La plus grande partie du financement et le sentiment d’urgence face à ce projet furent liés à l’obligation de la ville de préserver les documents du Comité d’organisation des Jeux olympiques d’hiver de 2010 (COVAN). Ce texte décrit quelques-unes des difficultés rencontrées à l’acquisition des documents numériques du COVAN. Il documente aussi les efforts des Archives pour faire correspondre les différentes tâches liées à l’acquisition et à l’évaluation du processus de travail relié au traitement des documents numériques, qui est limité par les technologies utilisées et donc moins flexible que pour les documents analogues. Les complexités sont dues à la fois à l’environnement technique utilisé par les créateurs des documents et aux limites imposées par la solution de préservation numérique des Archives. Ce texte examine aussi certaines façons dont les activités archivistiques de base peuvent différer des pratiques bien établies quand on les transpose dans un environnement numérique.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.006 |
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".