MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390418165 · doi:10.17723/2327-9702-86.2.664

Born-Digital Design Records

2023· article· en· W4390418165 on OpenAlex
Andi Altenbach

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueThe American Archivist · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchivistResource (disambiguation)Computer scienceScholarshipArchitectureDigital scholarshipWorld Wide WebLibrary scienceHistoryLawPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Born-Digital Design Records, edited by Samantha Winn, archival practitioners from across the design records landscape come together to provide a new, much-needed resource: an in-depth overview of the management of born-digital design records presented in three modules.Winn knows from experience the singular difficulties posed by these records, having served from 2014 to 2020 as the collections archivist for Virginia Tech's International Archives of Women in Architecture. The collections that document the work of the design disciplines, including architecture, engineering, landscape architecture, and construction, have always proved challenging for archivists to manage due to their specificity and unique physical characteristics. But the records generated by computer-aided design exist at a unique intersection of obstacles. Even as the set of digital tools used by designers have become more standardized, the records require a steep learning curve to navigate, contain interlinking dependencies with other files, and are often created with expensive, proprietary software.Like many who face this distinct set of hurdles and the lack of resources that address them, Winn looked to professional networks for guidance. This led her to the Society of American Archivists’ (SAA) Design Records Section (DRS), for which she eventually served a term as co-chair. Born-Digital Design Records was conceptualized during her tenure, responding to a call at the 2015 DRS annual meeting for “a new way of scholarship to document the advancements in archival practice regarding records of the built environment” (p. 1).While reading Born-Digital Design Records, one cannot help but notice the frequent invocation of “complex” as a descriptor: for the design process, the management of collections documenting the built environment, and the born-digital design record itself. This repeated description will not surprise anyone who works with design records, but it does make the book's clear and comprehensive overview of the digital preservation of design records all the more impressive. The first module, “Navigating the Technical Landscape of Born-Digital Design Records” by Kristine Fallon, Aliza Leventhal, and Zach Vowell, tackles this complexity head-on by providing an overview of the design process, the types of files produced by designers, and those files’ implications for collections management. The authors’ summary is enriched by discussions with digital design records creators and snapshots of the standard folder structure used by two design firms to organize their project files. The module is accompanied by a glossary, which is indispensable for archival professionals who find themselves suddenly navigating the jargon-heavy world of architecture. It will certainly become a foundational text for those new to working with these types of collections.The remaining two modules provide a practical overview of recent work done by a diverse set of practitioners tasked with digital preservation of architectural records. “Emerging Best Practices in the Accession, Preservation, and Emulation of Born-Digital Design Materials” by Leventhal, with Jody Thompson, Euan Cochrane, Laura Schroffel, and Emily Vigor, explores the workflows and suite of tools that archivists in a variety of contexts have developed and used to manage born-digital design collections. These range from emerging and promising technologies, like Emulation-as-a-Service, to standard archival documents, like deeds of gift, adapted to the needs of born-digital design records. At every step within their workflows for accessioning, processing, and providing access, the authors clearly articulate the specific dynamics raised by design records. At the same time, they do not disregard the wisdom of the larger digital preservation community: their recommended best practices reference established digital archiving standards and are contextualized within the framework of ISO's Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System and the National Digital Stewardship Alliance's Levels of Digital Preservation.1In the final module, “Case Studies in Born-Digital Design Records,” Leventhal and Vowell are joined by Stefana Breitwieser, Alexandra Jokinen, and Mireille Nappert to provide a window into how digital preservation of design records looks in practice from within three different settings: the university archives at California Polytechnic State University, a museum's research collections at the Canadian Centre for Architecture, and a corporate archives at the interdisciplinary design firm Sasaki. Because of the complex and diverse nature of born-digital design records, the conversation surrounding them can often feel abstract and intimidating. This module smartly sets a different tone by striking a balance of broadly applicable guidance and practical, specific examples. I appreciated that the authors grounded their analysis in descriptions of the workflows being implemented at their institutions, including screenshots to illustrate what they described. The authors also share the specific hardware and software used in their collections management activities and are generous in sharing the hiccups they encountered and the often “muddy” process of working through them.If any aspect of Born-Digital Design Records disappoints, it is its timeliness. SAA's Trends in Archives Practice series explicitly aims to provide “on trend” guidance “relating to the practical management of archives.” According to Winn's introduction, work on this volume was initiated in 2017, the year that I began working with design records. I can only imagine what a useful resource this would have been for me in the early years of my career. While these modules still fill the gap of available guidance six years later, I know from my position within the field that digital design practices continue to evolve. Building a proportionately responsive literature is an important part of equipping our professional community to address these ever-shifting challenges. As Winn writes in the introduction, “significant opportunity remains for future research…. The community still needs viable preservation frameworks that can be implemented at scale” (p. 9).Even so, this publication is attuned to the work that it is building upon and the work still left to do. For decades, born-digital design records found their way into archives occasionally. They are now the primary records that document our built environment and make up the bulk of design collections accessioned to repositories of all types. Taken as a whole, Born-Digital Design Records is a testament to the incredible work of the archival professionals who have been the vanguard of that shift from physical to digital, almost always with limited investment and resources. Although all three modules are concerned with the technical aspects of born-digital design records management, the authors recognize that such management is not merely a problem of technology and emphasize the vital role of engagement and relationship building with records creators, donors, and users of these collections.We still do not know what at-scale management of collections in the age of computer-aided design will look like. But the challenges of managing these records are too complex, multilayered, and varied to be solved by one perspective. Born-Digital Design Records is a necessary synthesis of multiple viewpoints that can be the foundation of our profession's contribution to future conversations, as well as an essential resource for those working with these records now.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.004

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.202 · 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