MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234129297 · doi:10.29085/9781783302086.014

Preserving archives

2018· book-chapter· en· W4234129297 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laura A. Millar

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Wars: History, Literature, and Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What boots it at one gate to make defence, And at another to let in the foe? John Milton (1608–74) Samson Agonistes , 1671 In theory, archival materials should be safer in archival custody than they were in the basement or attic of the person who created the records. Otherwise, one could argue, the archival institution should not acquire the materials in the first place. Many archivists would refute that statement, saying that if they did not bring a particular archival collection into their institution, the documents would be lost forever: shredded by a business that did not want to pay for storage or burnt by a family that had to clear out grandfather's home immediately after his death. Both positions have merit. But even if the archivist cannot achieve quality preservation controls today, she should not be ignorant of the best scenario for archival care. This chapter addresses the ideals of preservation and the realities of achieving them. It is critical to emphasize at the start that the profession of conservation is a recognized specialty, quite distinct from archival management. Ideally, the first course of action for any archivist needing to address matters of preservation and conservation would be to work with a professional conservator or a digital preservation specialist to identify risks and establish priorities for action. In reality, though, the vast majority of archival insti - tutions do not have the resources to employ conservators or digital preservation specialists. Compromises must be made. Fortunately, the greatest success with preservation comes not from active repairs but from basic housekeeping efforts. Keeping the facility clean, monitoring the environment, establishing temperature and relative humidity controls and reducing the risk of disasters can be much more beneficial in the long run than spending scarce resources to get cellotape off a fading map. It is also important to remember that, whatever the ideal might be, every archival institution needs to determine its own preservation needs, in keeping with its particular social and geopolitical realities. An archival institution in northern Europe faces different preservation challenges from one in sub- Saharan Africa, and the developers of a digital repository will prioritize different preservation concerns from a special collections department with a large number of medieval manuscripts. Blanket statements about what is best in theory do not necessarily translate to achievable results in practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.009
Scholarly communication0.0170.015
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0850.028

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchivesSame topicWorld Wars: History, Literature, and ImpactFrench-language works237,207