Digital critical archives, copyright, and feminist praxis
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
Abstract With the continued proliferation of digitized materials, critical attention to the ideologies informing the creation of digital archives remains crucial. How are digital archives made and what are their goals? How do different participants in the process work together in collaborative teams towards shared ideals? This paper outlines the methodological and political considerations that underlie the creation of a critical digital archive of historical and born-digital materials relating to 20th-century publishing history, The Modernist Archives Publishing Project ( MAPP ). Here we outline the archival practices and critical ethos that have informed the collaborative creation of MAPP by an international team of scholars, archivists, cultural institutions, students, and copyright estate holders. We address issues of selection that arise in creating a critical digital archive; feminist critical metadata practices; and our approaches to workflow and copyright; and conclude with an example of an archival document type in which the issues of feminist critical curation and copyright collide.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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