Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional Thai archival practice, which consists of documenting events and ceremonies, can be traced to the activities of royal scribes in past centuries. Today, this practice is carried out by national archivists, far removed from people’s daily lives. However, current digital transformations and participatory, networked culture are making documentation more relevant now than in the past – and to virtually everyone. Focusing on records from times of historic emergencies, this article aims to understand Thai documentation behaviour from a socio-cultural perspective, with an eye toward considering how to adjust traditional archival practice to the contemporary Thai context. Archival sources documenting two crises – the Franco-Siamese military conflict of 1893 and a catastrophic tropical storm in southern Thailand in 1962 – are compared with new social media–based documentation consisting of posts, comments, and other activity during the cave rescue incident in northern Thailand in 2018. This comparison is complemented by insights from national archivists and other documentation experts regarding their experiences and their thoughts on the future of Thai archival practice. Together, this comparison and these insights show that Thai documentation retained some of its original principles and functions in Thai society when it moved into a digital landscape, but there is still room for it to become more engaging and, in some ways, better suited to common understandings of archives as a “hall of fame.” This article suggests that Thai archivists should embrace a participatory archives model in which professional archivists remain essential but shift their focus from recording and guarding information to fostering the reliability and sustainability of documentation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".