Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This introduction outlines the vision set out by the thirty-five chapters that follow in this volume, Archives: Power, Truth, and Fiction. It emphasizes the urgent need for approaches to the archives that are interdisciplinary, global, cross-cultural, and that reach across professional knowledge siloes. We describe the ubiquitous and pluralistic character of the archive, which is both metaphor and material substance, framework and fission, and is continually evolving and being remade. The themes of ‘Power’ and of ‘Truth and Fiction’ that are highlighted in the title to this volume are here set in their larger intellectual contexts and the approaches taken by the various contributors are indicated. We outline the perceived advantages of our chosen structure in six thematic sections, which traverse periods, places, and professions and are designed to prioritize a concern with archives as process and performance: Conceptions, Frameworks, Materialities, Encounters & Evolution, Narrators, and Erasures & Exclusion. Our closing ‘coda’ analyses one iconic archival object, The Domesday Book, as an archival microcosm.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.558 | 0.363 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".