MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239997915 · doi:10.29085/9781783302086.013

Managing the institution

2018· book-chapter· en· W4239997915 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laura Millar

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicClassical Studies and Legal History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstitutionPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let no act be done at haphazard, nor otherwise than according to the finished rules that govern its kind. Marcus Aurelius (121–180) Meditations , 161–180 AD Even if she cannot directly shape operations herself, the archivist should understand the organizational environment in which archival service is performed. The policy framework includes the legislation, regulations, policies and strategic plans governing the care of records and archives. The administrative framework includes financial, logistical, physical and personnel conditions surrounding archival service in that institution. As with everything else related to archival service, legislative, regulatory and administrative frameworks vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and institution to institution. Government archives may be bound not only by a core piece of legislation, such as an Archives Act, but also by legislation related to data protection, access or privacy. A museum archives may need to be aware of the requirements of heritage management legislation, while a bank archives has to adhere to regulations for the disclosure of financial data. Even a community or local history society needs to respect copyright and intellectual property rights, which affect all archival institutions and – as examined in Chapter 7 – are governed by different laws around the world. Imagining the ‘ideal’ organizational structure Given that every archival institution is different, there is no ‘best’ way to configure operations, but – as emphasized throughout this book – digital technologies are transforming how information and evidence are created, directly influencing the ability of archivists to protect authentic documentary evidence for both immediate and future use. An ideal scenario in the 21st century (one that is, in reality, as rare as a feathered alligator) is one that gives the archivist broad powers to oversee the creation, management, use and disposal of documentary evidence, from before information is created to the point at which archives are secured for preservation. In such a dream scenario, the archival institution is ultimately responsible for major policy decisions about records management and archival preservation for its sponsor agency. The archival institution is directly accountable for the care, custody or control of archives but also guides the development and implementation of records policies. The institution may also provide guidance and training on effective records and archives care.

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)0.005
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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.024

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 topicClassical Studies and Legal HistoryFrench-language works237,207