Archives and children’s cultural heritage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this explorative and collectively written paper, researchers and archivists from the research project Children’s cultural heritage — the visual voices of the archive ponder, wrestle with, confront, and dig deeper into what it means to preserve and include children’s own voices in archives. The authors acknowledge that child-produced cultural objects are historical landmarks and significant parts of national heritage. The article raises questions about where and how the ‘doing’ of what is here called children’s cultural heritage takes place, what it means to archive from children’s perspectives, and what aspects of children are saved during these preservation and archival management processes. To collect, preserve and provide access to heritage might empower and affirm individuals and subordinated groups of people who have not been seen or heard in the historical past, in the present, or in future pasts. Children, as a category, is one such subordinated group in heritage contexts. Adults therefore have a responsibility to empower children by strengthening their position towards other social groups, towards society and the heritage domain. This article provides insights into the challenges that heritage establishments face in taking children’s cultural heritage seriously.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".