MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Of Bonfires, Mindsets, and Policies

2023· book-chapter· en· W4389886751 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilencePerformative utteranceContext (archaeology)Power (physics)Ephemeral keyAestheticsPerspective (graphical)HistorySociologyPolitical scienceArtVisual artsComputer scienceArchaeologyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The notion that archives are neutral places with no vested interests has been undermined by current philosophical and theoretical handlings of the concept of the ‘Archive’; it is now undeniable that archives are spaces of power, with the power to include and exclude, to distort, omit, and silence voices (Carter, 2006: 216). Inevitably, ‘not every story is told’. In the African context, this concern is pressing, considering the varied and sometimes ephemeral ways in which ‘texts’—written, visual, oral, ritual, performative—are documented. However, beyond the concern for the gaps created by the omission or ignoring of these non-conventional archives in African archival work, there yet remains within the conventional practice of archival management on the African continent, a simmering mix of factors that create silences. This chapter examines this multi-causal matrix of silence from the Ghanaian perspective.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.158 · 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